dvd-discuss.archive.0101100640 764 764 3735253 7235765361 15356 0ustar wseltzerwseltzerFrom dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 2 15:10:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12720 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:10:31 -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 PAA12717 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:10:30 -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 OAA20595 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:13:07 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A52368B.7B772DD6@uic.edu> Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 14:14:04 -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] Metrics of a "successful author" 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 Richard Hartman writes: > 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? An alternate interpretation of such a development is that if buying used books online is as easy as buying new books online, publishers will tend to favor the publication of books that people want to keep, as opposed to books that people buy, read once, and get rid of. One metric of a good author is how his or her books sell. Another metric of a good author is how many of his or her readers add the book to their permanent library, as opposed to throw it away or resell it. Up until now, the resale rate ofa book has not really been a factor in the success of an author, because used books have never been a serious threat to new book sales. That could be about to change, and I'm not sure it's a bad development. I mean, for every used book on Amazon, there's a person who paid full price for the book, and is now, days or weeks later, unloading it for a small fraction of the price -- a strong indication of a dissatisfied customer. Maybe the author of that book ought to find another line of work anyhow. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 2 15:34:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12910 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:34:26 -0500 Received: from linux2.americasnet.com (linux2.americasnet.com [207.155.121.170]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA12907 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:34:24 -0500 From: gifs@oz.net Received: from linux2.americasnet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by linux2.americasnet.com ; Tue, 02 Jan 2001 12:36:56 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Originating-Ip: 205.138.230.83 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 12:36:56 PST X-Mailer: EMUmail 4.5 Subject: [dvd-discuss] O.T.: Metrics of a "successful author" X-Webmail-User: gifs@oz.net Message-ID: <97846781601@linux2.americasnet.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I mean, for every used book on Amazon, there's a person who > paid full price for the book, and is now, days or weeks later, > unloading it for a small fraction of the price -- a strong > indication > of a dissatisfied customer. I don't think this is quite fair. My interpretation is that there are different kinds of books. Some I read, "consume", and discard. Some I keep. But one guy's trash is another guy's treasure. But people write pop psychology, and diet fads, and people buy these, and great works come out in both leatherbound and four-dollar paperback, and the whole world keeps on spinning. I tend not to judge a book by its cover... or its popularity and sales figures. I imagine the place where we can agree is that I have every right to re-sell my paperback, eBook, CD, CD-ROM, and DVD. And on this last point I imagine we haven't hit the MPAA's legal challenge yet. But we will. This message powered by EMUMAIL. -- http://www.EMUMAIL.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 2 16:09:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA13291 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:09:43 -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 QAA13288 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:09:42 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:12:35 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:12:34 -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 I don't know about that. There are a lot of enjoyable reads that don't need to be permanent aquisitions. Paperbacks especially are essentially disposable in nature. What are you gonna do, read it and throw it away, or try and recoup a little of the cost by recycling it? Doesn't mean it's a bad book or that you are dissatisfied, just that you're done with it. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:14 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" > > > Richard Hartman writes: > > 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? > > An alternate interpretation of such a development is that if > buying used books online is as easy as buying new books > online, publishers will tend to favor the publication of books > that people want to keep, as opposed to books that people > buy, read once, and get rid of. > > One metric of a good author is how his or her books sell. > Another metric of a good author is how many of his or her > readers add the book to their permanent library, as opposed > to throw it away or resell it. Up until now, the resale rate > ofa book has not really been a factor in the success of an > author, because used books have never been a serious > threat to new book sales. That could be about to change, > and I'm not sure it's a bad development. > > I mean, for every used book on Amazon, there's a person who > paid full price for the book, and is now, days or weeks later, > unloading it for a small fraction of the price -- a strong indication > of a dissatisfied customer. Maybe the author of that book ought > to find another line of work anyhow. > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 2 17:23:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13921 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:23:21 -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 RAA13918 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:23:19 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5e2.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.226]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8ECA27A96 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:23:53 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D36E217517E; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:23:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:23:28 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" Message-ID: <20010102232328.A24692@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 Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 01:12:34PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 01:12:34PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > I don't know about that. There are a lot of > enjoyable reads that don't need to be permanent > aquisitions. Paperbacks especially are essentially > disposable in nature. What are you gonna do, read > it and throw it away, or try and recoup a little of > the cost by recycling it? Doesn't mean it's a bad > book or that you are dissatisfied, just that you're > done with it. that still means it's not worth keeping. not sure whether this is a cultural thing, but I *do* keep all books that I enjoyed (and quite a few that were not especially good), even if I don't intend to ever read them again. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 2 20:14:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA15887 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:14:02 -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 UAA15884 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:14:01 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:30:59 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:30:57 -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 Yeah, well I'm runnning out of bookshelf space (and wall space for bookshelves!) m'self. Gotta cut something! -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:23 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 01:12:34PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > I don't know about that. There are a lot of > > enjoyable reads that don't need to be permanent > > aquisitions. Paperbacks especially are essentially > > disposable in nature. What are you gonna do, read > > it and throw it away, or try and recoup a little of > > the cost by recycling it? Doesn't mean it's a bad > > book or that you are dissatisfied, just that you're > > done with it. > > that still means it's not worth keeping. not sure whether this is a > cultural thing, but I *do* keep all books that I enjoyed (and quite a > few that were not especially good), even if I don't intend to > ever read > them again. > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 2 23:50:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA17258 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:50:28 -0500 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA17255 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:50:27 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld6ge.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.154.14]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA04098 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:53:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A52AF3B.FB89C734@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:49:00 -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] Yahoo argues Lack of Jurisdiction 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 Did they drop the argument? http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/03/yahoo.nazi.auctions.ap/index.html mickeym > > --- 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. > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 3 10:48:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA23308 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:48:00 -0500 Received: from dial148.roadrunner.com (sf-du148.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA23305 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:47:56 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial148.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01066 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:39:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:39:06 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20010103083905.D657@localhost> References: <3A4CBBF2.E456D8E@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A4CBBF2.E456D8E@uic.edu>; from jms@uic.edu on Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 10:29:39AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 10:29:39AM -0600, John Schulien wrote: [ ... ] > 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. In a strict sense the author of this snipit above is right: the terms are not coming after a sale. What I doubt the person John is quoting understands is that it is difficult to say there was a sale at all if one accepts the validity of shrink-wrap licenses. Just because you give your money away doesn't mean you bought something. For example renting or paying membership due isn't a "sale" in the sense of exchanging ownership for a payment. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 3 11:00:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA23478 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:00:36 -0500 Received: from dial148.roadrunner.com (sf-du148.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA23475 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:00:33 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial148.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01080 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:51:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:51:43 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20010103085143.E657@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 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: > > > > -----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. What happened to my property? The letter is only concerned with their property interest in the copyright. It rides rough-shod over my ownership of a copy. If my ownership of the copy is going to have any real meaning, then I have to be able to dispose of it as I see fit. Their property interest in the copyright is not a guarantee of income. Changing circumstances (i.e. a fast edge-driven network and the personal computer) that allow for the price of the legally printed books to be arbitraged should be their tough luck. The monopoly of copyright is a tool to be used as the owner sees fit *given the real-world constraints of the un-monopolized parts of commerce*, not an excuse to bring the rest of commerce under the sway of the copyright owner. > 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? Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 3 11:21:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA23720 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:21:05 -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 LAA23717 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:21:01 -0500 Received: from ip49.bedford17.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.91.49]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14DqhQ-0001SR-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:23:40 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:32:04 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20010103085143.E657@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20010103085143.E657@localhost> 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 LAA23718 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:51:43 -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: >What happened to my property? The letter is only concerned with their >property interest in the copyright. It rides rough-shod over my ownership >of a copy. > >If my ownership of the copy is going to have any real meaning, then I have to >be able to dispose of it as I see fit. Their property interest in the >copyright is not a guarantee of income. Changing circumstances (i.e. a >fast edge-driven network and the personal computer) that allow for the >price of the legally printed books to be arbitraged should be their >tough luck. The monopoly of copyright is a tool to be used as the owner >sees fit *given the real-world constraints of the un-monopolized parts of >commerce*, not an excuse to bring the rest of commerce under the sway of >the copyright owner. In Amazon's favor, it's just a few clicks between them and eBay. Publishers also have a right not to choose them as an outlet. >> 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? It's the implosion that concerns me also. If publishing on physical media comes to be seen as too costly, there will be that much more corporate and government interest in controlling what's on everyone's hard drive. Also, if the unit price goes poof, the only incentive to publish novels will be the movie rights. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 3 12:04:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA24079 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:04:14 -0500 Received: from dial237.roadrunner.com (sf-du237.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.237]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA24076 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:04:09 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial237.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01167 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:55:09 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:55:08 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20010103095508.A1145@localhost> 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: > >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. But these are not "their books sales". The copyright owner had "their" sale the first time the book entered the stream of commerce. The sales after that only involve the owner of the copy and the purchaser. I contend that the confusion is not whether a book is "used" or "new", but about what the word "sale" means. As far as an argument for limiting access, the letter from the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers contains a statement assuming that copyright owners have the related right of controlling some non-copyright use: In addition, Amazon does not appear to have taken any precautions to prevent Marketplace users from selling review copies or other promotional copies not intended for resale. This statement is close to a claim that the copyright owner can control things other than exclusive rights after relinquishing ownership of a copy. Review and promotional copies are often distributed as gifts, never being returned to the copyright owner. If the copyright owner decides to transfer ownership gratis (as a gift), does the recipient of the copy own the copy or not? If the recipient owns the copy, why can't she sell the copy? The Publishing Association's letter doesn't leave much room for the first sale doctrine. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 3 12:45:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA25088 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:45:40 -0500 Received: from dial88.roadrunner.com (sf-du88.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.88]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA25085 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:45:28 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial88.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01229 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:36:35 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:36:35 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20010103103635.A1179@localhost> References: <20010103085143.E657@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 rongus@tiac.net on Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:32:04AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:32:04AM -0500, Ron Gustavson wrote: > >Ron Gustavson wrote: > >> 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? > > It's the implosion that concerns me also. If publishing on physical > media comes to be seen as too costly, there will be that much more > corporate and government interest in controlling what's on everyone's > hard drive. Also, if the unit price goes poof, the only incentive to > publish novels will be the movie rights. I agree that there is an opportunity for mischief here on the part of "intellectual property" boosters. However, the expanisionist trend in copyright is at least a century old, so any "adjustment" of copyright that expands the effective scope of s.106 is just part of one long slippery slope. The technology for making copies and finding buyers for those copies has indeed changed. Some eggs are going to be broken as a result. Either the old publishing industry (defined as making large printing runs?) if going to change, or the scope of the audience's rights in printed-on-paper books is going to be restricted. I don't see how a loss of rights is paper books is going to help deal with the currently unfolding fiascos of DMCA, WIPO, UCITA, etc. The unit cost can't go to zero because the shipping costs at each resale are a few bucks. Add in 50-100% mark-up, and the resale cost of a hard back book is probably $5 or more. Most first-runs are hard back. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 3 13:32:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA25450 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:32:03 -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 NAA25447 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:32:01 -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 MAA07129 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:34:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A537106.EDDB1104@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 12:35:51 -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] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" 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 Paul Fenimore writes: > John Schulien wrote: >> 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. > > In a strict sense the author of this snipit above is right: the terms > are not coming after a sale. What I doubt the person John is quoting > understands is that it is difficult to say there was a sale at all if > one accepts the validity of shrink-wrap licenses. Here's my understanding of shrink-wrap licenses and why they can't apply to books. A shrink-wrap license is considered a contract. A contract is only valid and binding if it provides consideration to both parties. Basic contract law. If we agree that I'm going to give you my car, that isn't a contract, because I received no consideration. If we agree that I'm going to give you my car for $1.00, that's a contract. This is why public donations often involve small, token payments, to satisfy the consideration requirement. In the case of a shrink-wrap or click-through software license, when you purchase a copy of a piece of software, you are the owner of that copy, just like when you buy a book, you are the owner of that copy of that book. Because there was no license agreement at the time of sale, you are unencumbered by any licensing terms, and are free to do anything with that copy that does not infringe on an exclusive right of the copyright holder. However, in the case of a piece of software, an unfortunate precedent has been established that because the act of installing the software on your hard drive and/or running the program requires the making of a copy of the software either onto your hard drive or into the memory of your computer, you cannot install or run the software without licensing an exclusive right of the copyright holder -- the right to make copies. So, the basis of a shrink-wrap or click-through software license is as follows. In exchange for a limited license to make copies of the work (onto your own computer), the end-user agrees to the licensing terms (limitations on use, transfer, reverse-engineering, etc.) Each side receives consideration, making the contract valid. Or so the logic goes. Now consider a book with a shrink-wrap license. In this case, regardless of whether the user "agrees" to the licensing terms by removing the shrink-wrap, the license does not comprise a valid contract, because no consideration is given to the purchaser. Unlike software, the normal usage of a book does not involve the making of a copy of any sort, so there is no need for the owner of a book to enter into any licensing agreement with the book's publisher. The right to resell the book is codified into copyright law, so even if the purchaser "agreed" by removing the shrink-wrap, the "contract" would be invalid because the purchaser did not receive any consideration in exchange for giving up their right to resell the book. He or she already had full and complete ownership of the book, shrink-wrap and all, and was free to remove the shrink-wrap from his or her personal property, and disregard it. So that's my understanding of why shrink-wrap licenses could not be applied to books without both a major reworking of copyright law and also an abandonment of the basic principles of contract law. There's a couple of questions I have ... First, have I got it right? Second, what are the effects of 17 USC 117. This provision appears to me to invalidate most shrink-wrap licenses, by redefining the act of installing and running a computer program as non-infringing. If I have the right, under copyright law, to install and run a program, where is the consideration? What do I receive in exchange for giving up my first-sale and fair-use rights? Has a shrink-wrap license ever been challenged on this basis? - John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 3 20:45:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA30160 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:45:23 -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 UAA30157 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:45:15 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:48:18 -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: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:48:17 -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: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] ... > If my ownership of the copy is going to have any real > meaning, then I have to > be able to dispose of it as I see fit. The question here is not your ability to resell the book. The question is Amazon's providing you a forum to do so. -- -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 Wed Jan 3 20:46:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA30183 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:46:47 -0500 Received: from www.navigo.com (www.navigo.com [216.30.16.18]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA30180 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:46:46 -0500 Received: from cgomesw2k (64-51-12-165.client.dsl.net [64.51.12.165]) by www.navigo.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA20585 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 19:41:44 -0600 Message-ID: <01de01c075f0$cfb8ced0$e101a8c0@cgomesw2k> From: "Carlos Macedo Gomes" To: References: Subject: alternate sources for The Register claim [was Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: from Intel RE: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary] Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:50:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hello all, Long time lurker first time poster :-) Has anyone come across any more details from Intel or 4C regarding the below statement by Gelsinger? regards, C.G. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 3:39 PM Subject: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: from Intel RE: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary > >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 Thu Jan 4 05:36:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA02841 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:36:16 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f164.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.164]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA02838 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:36:12 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 02:38:22 -0800 Received: from 63.224.105.228 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:38:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.224.105.228] From: "K Phill" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 03:38:22 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2001 10:38:22.0650 (UTC) FILETIME=[760391A0:01C0763A] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Boy, this is a sore spot with me. First let me ask if there is even the need for a shrinkwrap license??? Isn't the software prevented from unlawful copying by placement of copyright notice on the software? Also, since no book comes with a notice/warranty as to the usability of the information contained therein, why does there need to one on software? Since all shrinkwrap licenses go beyond copyright by restricting the buyer's rights even further than copyright does, and if the company wants the license to be applicable over the copyright (or why would they use it in the first place), why should they be allowed to place/have a copyright on their software? Also, there is no shop on this planet that takes back an opened box of software. If I disagree with the shrinkwrap license, how can I get my money back? I suppose this point was made with windows refund day: http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/ If they want to be able to have a so called "license" maybe there should be a "warranty." I would settle for making the bug fixes available instead of rolling them into an "upgrade" that I'm forced to buy, and not obsoleting the software six months after I buy it. I guess you can see why I'm trying to move to linux so I can get off the never-ending upgrade mill. That's where the economic boom came from in the nineties - from everybody having to re-buy their software every year. The danger you have of taking any of this to court and winning is that the congressmen would kiss their corporate owners and "fix" the law by passing legislation making shrinkwrap licenses obligatory. If you don't take it to court and since copyright law is largely defined by the status quo, shrinkwrap licenses obtain the force of law by default. Anyway you look at it, prospects don't look good. >From: John Schulien; > >Here's my understanding of shrink-wrap licenses and >why they can't apply to books. > >A shrink-wrap license is considered a contract. A contract >is only valid and binding if it provides consideration to both >parties. Basic contract law. If we agree that I'm going to >give you my car, that isn't a contract, because I received >no consideration. If we agree that I'm going to give you my >car for $1.00, that's a contract. This is why public donations >often involve small, token payments, to satisfy the >consideration requirement. > >In the case of a shrink-wrap or click-through software license, >when you purchase a copy of a piece of software, you are the >owner of that copy, just like when you buy a book, you are the >owner of that copy of that book. Because there was no license >agreement at the time of sale, you are unencumbered by any >licensing terms, and are free to do anything with that copy that >does not infringe on an exclusive right of the copyright holder. > >However, in the case of a piece of software, an unfortunate >precedent has been established that because the act of installing >the software on your hard drive and/or running the program >requires the making of a copy of the software either onto your >hard drive or into the memory of your computer, you cannot >install or run the software without licensing an exclusive right >of the copyright holder -- the right to make copies. > >So, the basis of a shrink-wrap or click-through software license >is as follows. In exchange for a limited license to make copies >of the work (onto your own computer), the end-user agrees to >the licensing terms (limitations on use, transfer, >reverse-engineering, etc.) Each side receives consideration, >making the contract valid. Or so the logic goes. > >Now consider a book with a shrink-wrap license. In this case, >regardless of whether the user "agrees" to the licensing terms >by removing the shrink-wrap, the license does not comprise a >valid contract, because no consideration is given to the >purchaser. > >Unlike software, the normal usage of a book does not involve >the making of a copy of any sort, so there is no need for the >owner of a book to enter into any licensing agreement with >the book's publisher. The right to resell the book is codified >into copyright law, so even if the purchaser "agreed" by >removing the shrink-wrap, the "contract" would be invalid >because the purchaser did not receive any consideration in >exchange for giving up their right to resell the book. > >He or she already had full and complete ownership of the >book, shrink-wrap and all, and was free to remove the >shrink-wrap from his or her personal property, and disregard >it. > >So that's my understanding of why shrink-wrap licenses >could not be applied to books without both a major reworking >of copyright law and also an abandonment of the basic >principles of contract law. > >There's a couple of questions I have ... > >First, have I got it right? > >Second, what are the effects of 17 USC 117. This provision >appears to me to invalidate most shrink-wrap licenses, by >redefining the act of installing and running a computer >program as non-infringing. If I have the right, under copyright >law, to install and run a program, where is the consideration? >What do I receive in exchange for giving up my first-sale and >fair-use rights? > >Has a shrink-wrap license ever been challenged on this basis? > >- John > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 4 12:55:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15158 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:55:05 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15155 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:55:04 -0500 Received: from panix.com (www2.panix.com [166.84.0.221]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A9BCF491DC for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:43:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Roy Murphy" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:43:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.6k, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3a54b63f.589c.0@panix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id MAA15156 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Paul Fenimore writes: >This statement is close to a claim that the copyright owner can >control things other than exclusive rights after relinquishing >ownership of a copy. Review and promotional copies are often >distributed as gifts, never being returned to the copyright owner. If >the copyright owner decides to transfer ownership gratis (as a gift), >does the recipient of the copy own the copy or not? If the recipient >owns the copy, why can't she sell the copy? The Publishing >Association's letter doesn't leave much room for the first sale >doctrine. Postal Laws may provide some of these answers. If an item is sent through the US Mail without being requested by the recipient, the sender can not unilaterally impose any conditions on the disposal of the item. The recipient is free to dispose of it as they wish including selling the item. Of course, using UPS or requiring people to requst evaluation copies is probably a way around this restriction. [blatantly copied from a Slashdot comment] (copied directly from the US Postal service publication 201, Consumer's Guide to Postal Services & Products, available from the USPS at http://www.usps.com) Unsolicited Merchandise Federal law prohibits the shipment of unordered merchandise. Such a practice may constitute an unfair trade practice. Merchandise mailed in violation of United States Code may be treated as a gift by the recipient without any obligation to the sender. The laws governing this practice are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. If you believe that you have received unor-dered merchandise in violation of federal law, contact the Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection at: BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON DC 20580-0001 -- Roy Murphy \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses murphy@panix.com \ http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 4 13:11:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA15344 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:11:03 -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 NAA15341 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:10:57 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:14:01 -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: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:13:59 -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: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:55 AM > 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: > > >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. > > But these are not "their books sales". The copyright owner had "their" > sale the first time the book entered the stream of commerce. The sales > after that only involve the owner of the copy and the purchaser. Not when it is positioned as an easy alternative to a new sale. Each sale of a used book through Amazon.com is, at least in the first few months of distribution of a new work, essentially the loss of a sale of a new copy. Not illegal, certainly. And on the small scale afforded by the traditional outlet of local used bookstores, probably not a figure to be concerned about. But when one of the leading outlets for the new editions is offering the used side-by-side w/ the new then it does become an issue of concern for the authors. Technology makes many things easier. Sometimes that has impact beyond the obvious. I believe that this is one of those cases. -- -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 Thu Jan 4 15:52:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16626 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:52:30 -0500 Received: from dial74.roadrunner.com (sf-du74.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16623 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:52:25 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial74.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02041 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:43:34 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:43:34 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20010104134334.A2019@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 hartman@onetouch.com on Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:48:17PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:48:17PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > Paul Fenimore wrote: > ... > > If my ownership of the copy is going to have any real > > meaning, then I have to > > be able to dispose of it as I see fit. > > The question here is not your ability to resell the book. > The question is Amazon's providing you a forum to do so. I disagree. The issue of a forum is the same as the ability to resell. One doesn't make a sale by sitting at home and keeping one's mouth shut. "Getting out there" and pushing merchandise is just as much a part of commerce as taking the money. That's part of why some businesses succeed and others fail. In the case of Amazon and the publisher's association that certainly leads to a missed opportunity cost for the publisher if they don't adjust their strategy and plans accordingly. However, a market economy is predicated in part on the idea that missed opportunity by one business is not theft on the part of the person who does make the sale. So far as I understand what you've written, Amazon's forum for used books is misappropriation of someone else's rightful business. In summary, I disagree with the position that the publisher is entitled to business, unless it would infringe their copyright to do business with another party. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 4 16:02:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA16815 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:02:49 -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 QAA16811 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:02:47 -0500 Received: from superkorn (DHCPP2025.resnet.oberlin.edu [132.162.233.59]) by oberlin.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #46472) with SMTP id <0G6N001P6P8XYZ@oberlin.edu> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:05:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:08:03 -0500 From: Mark Subject: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS Part Deux? In-reply-to: <20010104134334.A2019@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 anyone else see this? It was on slashdot today. It appears to be a proposal to do for digital TV what CSS did (or tried to do) for DVD... http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=19517&pod_id=11 Quoted from story, "This fall, the FCC blessed the idea for a device to regulate what people watch and copy, and last month an industry trade group submitted its final proposal on the specs of the new system. The results aren't pretty: Now, when people switch over to digital TVs, if they ever do, it's not just that they won't be able to create infinite perfect copies of movies and television shows to bootleg or trade for free on the Internet. Under the new rules, they will not be able to make a copy on the den TV and then play it in the bedroom or take the tape over to a friend's house." Will the madness ever stop?????? Mark Kornblum From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 4 16:24:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA17153 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:24:38 -0500 Received: from dial116.roadrunner.com (sf-du116.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.116]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA17150 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:24:35 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial116.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02112 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:15:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:15:31 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20010104141531.A2093@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 hartman@onetouch.com on Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:13:59AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:13:59AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > Paul Fenimore wrote > > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:52:30PM -0500, Ron Gustavson 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? > > > > > > 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. > > > > But these are not "their books sales". The copyright owner had "their" > > sale the first time the book entered the stream of commerce. The sales > > after that only involve the owner of the copy and the purchaser. > > Not when it is positioned as an easy alternative to a new sale. > Each sale of a used book through Amazon.com is, at least in the > first few months of distribution of a new work, essentially the > loss of a sale of a new copy. > > Not illegal, certainly. And on the small scale afforded by the > traditional outlet of local used bookstores, probably not a figure > to be concerned about. But when one of the leading outlets for > the new editions is offering the used side-by-side w/ the new > then it does become an issue of concern for the authors. > > Technology makes many things easier. Sometimes that has impact > beyond the obvious. I believe that this is one of those cases. Perhaps we differ in how we see the alternatives? I don't see a way for publisher's to regulate resale that doesn't significantly diminish the meaning and effect of the first sale doctrine. If it is a choice between the publisher's desires to increase sales outside their scope of exclusive rights vs. part of the limitations on exclusive rights (which is what I think we're looking at), then the choice is easy. We keep first sale, and they learn to operate in an environment where book prices are arbitraged on the time scale of shipping (3 days) added to the time to read the book (a day to a few weeks). Operating in the publisher's favor, if the supply of resold books isn't big enough, then the new sales rise. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 4 16:56:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA17498 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:56:47 -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 QAA17495 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:56:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (khockenb@localhost) by attila.stevens-tech.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/7) with ESMTP id QAA11723530 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:59:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:59:27 -0500 From: Kurt Hockenbury To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS Part Deux? 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 Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Mark wrote: > Hey anyone else see this? It was on slashdot today. It appears to be a > proposal to do for digital TV what CSS did (or tried to do) for DVD... > > http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=19517&pod_id=11 Also, from the y.r.o. section: "Can DVD be Protected?" http://www.planetit.com/techcenters/docs/security-hostile_content/news/PIT20001229S0006 talking about adding watermarks and other forms of additional ``protection'' to DVDs. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 4 19:33:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA19287 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:33:31 -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 TAA19284 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:33:28 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:36:36 -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: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:36:29 -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: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:44 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales > > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:48:17PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > Paul Fenimore wrote: > > ... > > > If my ownership of the copy is going to have any real > > > meaning, then I have to > > > be able to dispose of it as I see fit. > > > > The question here is not your ability to resell the book. > > The question is Amazon's providing you a forum to do so. > > I disagree. The issue of a forum is the same as the ability to > resell. One doesn't make a sale by sitting at home and keeping > one's mouth shut. "Getting out there" and pushing merchandise > is just as much a part of commerce as taking the money. That's > part of why some businesses succeed and others fail. In the case > of Amazon and the publisher's association that certainly > leads to a missed opportunity cost for the publisher if they > don't adjust their strategy and plans accordingly. However, a market > economy is predicated in part on the idea that missed opportunity > by one business is not theft on the part of the person who does > make the sale. So far as I understand what you've written, Amazon's > forum for used books is misappropriation of someone else's rightful > business. > > In summary, I disagree with the position that the publisher is > entitled to business, unless it would infringe their copyright > to do business with another party. > Well ... we're on different grounds if you're talking about "entitlement". To me this is still at the moment a marketplace issue and not a legal one. The authors (and publishers?) have requested that Amazon not link to the used books for recent works. That is (IMO) a reasonable request. Amazon will either honor the request or not. If not, then the publishers may decide to stop selling their books through Amazon altogether. Still all within the marketplace dynamic. If the issue goes to the courts then we've got a different animal. As far as I am concerned, yes Amazon has the -right- to place the used book link next to the new one ... but whether it is the right thing to do is never a legal issue. -- -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 Thu Jan 4 22:09:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA20231 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:09:02 -0500 Received: from spdmraac.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-3.compuserve.com [149.174.206.154]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA20228 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:09:00 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id WAA15018 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:11:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-sfu-vty31.as.wcom.net [216.192.39.31]) by spdmraac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id WAA14993 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:11:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:12:13 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Disposition-Notification-To: "Juergen + Barbara" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu don't get you hopes too high here; and, BTW, get the facts straight: 1) the companies providing PCs with preloaded Windows9x are paying Microsoft a mere $1! (If the customer ordered, say, Windows NT, that had cost extra $125.) (I used to be Product Manager for a big PC company two years ago.) 2) those companies then DO support any problems here with Windows and software provided 3) and: goto windowsupdate.microsoft.com, and you get any (major) bugfixes automagically, for free! Including support releases; e.g., Office 2000 support patch SR1a some 52MB (about 8 min download time on my DSL connection); again, for free! Cheers, jm. Jurgen Menge San Jose, CA -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of K Phill Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Januar 2001 02:38 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" Boy, this is a sore spot with me. First let me ask if there is even the need for a shrinkwrap license??? Isn't the software prevented from unlawful copying by placement of copyright notice on the software? Also, since no book comes with a notice/warranty as to the usability of the information contained therein, why does there need to one on software? Since all shrinkwrap licenses go beyond copyright by restricting the buyer's rights even further than copyright does, and if the company wants the license to be applicable over the copyright (or why would they use it in the first place), why should they be allowed to place/have a copyright on their software? Also, there is no shop on this planet that takes back an opened box of software. If I disagree with the shrinkwrap license, how can I get my money back? I suppose this point was made with windows refund day: http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/ If they want to be able to have a so called "license" maybe there should be a "warranty." I would settle for making the bug fixes available instead of rolling them into an "upgrade" that I'm forced to buy, and not obsoleting the software six months after I buy it. (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 5 01:21:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA21312 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:21:48 -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 BAA21309 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:21:46 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:38:26 -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: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:38:25 -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: Paul Fenimore [mailto:fenimore@roadrunner.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:16 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales > > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:13:59AM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > > Paul Fenimore wrote > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:52:30PM -0500, Ron Gustavson 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? > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > But these are not "their books sales". The copyright > owner had "their" > > > sale the first time the book entered the stream of > commerce. The sales > > > after that only involve the owner of the copy and the purchaser. > > > > Not when it is positioned as an easy alternative to a new sale. > > Each sale of a used book through Amazon.com is, at least in the > > first few months of distribution of a new work, essentially the > > loss of a sale of a new copy. > > > > Not illegal, certainly. And on the small scale afforded by the > > traditional outlet of local used bookstores, probably not a figure > > to be concerned about. But when one of the leading outlets for > > the new editions is offering the used side-by-side w/ the new > > then it does become an issue of concern for the authors. > > > > Technology makes many things easier. Sometimes that has impact > > beyond the obvious. I believe that this is one of those cases. > > Perhaps we differ in how we see the alternatives? I don't see a way > for publisher's to regulate resale that doesn't significantly > diminish the > meaning and effect of the first sale doctrine. I think it is that we are seeing a different playing field. So far regulation has not entered into it. It is a request. This is all playing out in the marketplace milleu, not the courts. The request is a valid one in the world of commerce. What happens if Amazon decides not to honor the request might place the issue in the courts, and then the ground rules change. -- -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 Jan 5 16:56:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA29195 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:56:26 -0500 Received: from www.navigo.com (www.navigo.com [216.30.16.18]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA29192 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:56:24 -0500 Received: from cgomesw2k (64-51-12-165.client.dsl.net [64.51.12.165]) by www.navigo.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA30124; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:50:49 -0600 Message-ID: <005b01c07762$f2e18460$cf6525a9@cgomesw2k> From: "Carlos Macedo Gomes" To: Cc: , , Subject: [dvd-discuss] CPRM major threat to computers (?) (fwd) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:00:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu See the below correction from "Gelsinger, Patrick P" saying: "It (The Register's article[1]/Gilmore's claim[2]) 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" full text at http://www.interesting-people.org/200012/0064.html I've not found anything online from Intel or 4C clarifying the "misinterpretation" beyond the above mentioned email from Glesinger to the IP list. I'm still looking... Was The Register trolling[3]? ymmv, C.G. [1] The Register article -- http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html [2] John Gilmore's email -- http://www.interesting-people.org/200012/0053.html [3] http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/y.html#YHBT -- gomes@navigo.com Carlos Macedo Gomes _sic itur ad astra_ 1; From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 5 17:58:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA29628 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:58:04 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA29624 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:58:03 -0500 Received: from panix3.panix.com (panix3.panix.com [166.84.0.228]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C32491D0; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:00:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by panix3.panix.com (8.8.8/8.7.1/PanixN1.0) with ESMTP id SAA00406; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:00:40 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: panix3.panix.com: jays owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:00:39 -0500 (EST) From: Jay Sulzberger To: Carlos Macedo Gomes Cc: , , , Jay Sulzberger Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: CPRM major threat to computers (?) (fwd) In-Reply-To: <005b01c07762$f2e18460$cf6525a9@cgomesw2k> 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, 5 Jan 2001, Carlos Macedo Gomes wrote: > > See the below correction from "Gelsinger, Patrick P" > saying: > > "It (The Register's article[1]/Gilmore's claim[2]) 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" > full text at http://www.interesting-people.org/200012/0064.html > > I've not found anything online from Intel or 4C clarifying the > "misinterpretation" beyond the above mentioned email from Glesinger to the IP > list. I'm still looking... > > Was The Register trolling[3]? > > ymmv, > C.G. > > [1] The Register article -- http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html > [2] John Gilmore's email -- http://www.interesting-people.org/200012/0053.html > [3] http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/y.html#YHBT > -- > gomes@navigo.com > Carlos Macedo Gomes No, Gelsinger is mistaken. The 4C Entity proposes that every ATA hard drive made after August 2001 contain hardware and software under control of the 4C Entity and its partners. Here is one way to put the issue to people who have not heard of the 4C Entity: If TimeWarner were to ask your permission to install one megabyte of software in your system, whose sole purpose was to scan your hard disk, send back information to TimeWarner, and to prevent you from performing certain operations which TimeWarner does not like, would you agree to this? What if the software were irremovable? Well, the 4C entity knows you would not agree, so they are trying to sneak the software onto your system without you knowing. For some links see http://www.lxny.org/announce/2001/lxnymtg.0102.html Also http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15797.html http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/briefs/0074.html oo--JS. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 5 20:44:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA30657 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:44:38 -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 UAA30503 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:23:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 1433 invoked by uid 69022); 6 Jan 2001 01:26:29 -0000 Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:26:07 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cc: jya@pipeline.com, jstyre@jstyre.com Subject: [dvd-discuss] News Message-ID: <20010106012607.A1416@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Since people asked before Christmas, I thought I'd send an update. The discovery (or is it deposition - I'm not sure of the correct term) on the jurisdiction issue for DVD-CCA trying to add me to their complaint occurred today, all 3.5 hours of it. The current schedule is for a hearing on 23rd January. DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 7 09:56:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA09953 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 09:56:32 -0500 Received: from kali.digimental.com ([212.130.1.50]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA09944; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 09:56:29 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 09:56:29 -0500 From: merldyn@gmx.ch Message-Id: <200101071456.JAA09944@eon.law.harvard.edu> Received: from gesundes (p3e9ba996.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.169.150]) by kali.digimental.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id ZMR7TF1J; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:57:57 +0100 To: merlyewn@gmx.ch Subject: [dvd-discuss] ein gesundes Neues 2001 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 JETZT EINLOGGEN HTTP://www.ural.ru -------------------------------------------------------------------SHAREWARE PS@MAIL---------------------- Dieser Fusstext erschein nur bei Nutzung einer unregistrierten Version von ps@mail.exe PS@MAIL.EXE unter http://www.shareware.de http://www.stripline.de http://www.selfproducer.de -------------------------------------------------------------------SHAREWARE PS@MAIL-------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 7 13:02:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA11049 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:02:38 -0500 Received: from server ([212.131.167.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA11040; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:02:33 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:02:33 -0500 From: merldyn@gmx.ch Message-Id: <200101071802.NAA11040@eon.law.harvard.edu> Received: from gesundes neues ([62.155.169.150]) by server (Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1 (569.2 2-6-1998)) with SMTP id 412569CD.00474581; Wed, 7 Jan 1970 14:00:30 +0100 To: merlyewn@gmx.ch Subject: [dvd-discuss] ein gesundes Neues 2001 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 JETZT EINLOGGEN HTTP://www.ural.ru -------------------------------------------------------------------SHAREWARE PS@MAIL---------------------- Dieser Fusstext erschein nur bei Nutzung einer unregistrierten Version von ps@mail.exe PS@MAIL.EXE unter http://www.shareware.de http://www.stripline.de http://www.selfproducer.de -------------------------------------------------------------------SHAREWARE PS@MAIL-------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 02:29:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA15413 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 02:29:20 -0500 Received: from mail.ctech.dk ([212.130.1.174]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA15404; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 02:29:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 02:29:12 -0500 From: merldyn@gmx.ch Message-Id: <200101080729.CAA15404@eon.law.harvard.edu> Received: from gesundes (pD950152B.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.21.43]) by mail.ctech.dk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id CFGV9YDA; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:30:13 +0100 To: merlyewn@gmx.ch Subject: [dvd-discuss] ein gesundes Neues 2001 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 JETZT EINLOGGEN HTTP://www.ural.ru -------------------------------------------------------------------SHAREWARE PS@MAIL---------------------- Dieser Fusstext erschein nur bei Nutzung einer unregistrierten Version von ps@mail.exe PS@MAIL.EXE unter http://www.shareware.de http://www.stripline.de http://www.selfproducer.de -------------------------------------------------------------------SHAREWARE PS@MAIL-------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 03:28:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA15800 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 03:28:54 -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 DAA15797 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 03:28:51 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3E9BBB45.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.69]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E2527AB6 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:29:12 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 82C9C175182; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:28:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:28:57 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ein gesundes Neues 2001 Message-ID: <20010108092856.A14467@lemuria.org> References: <200101080729.CAA15404@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: <200101080729.CAA15404@eon.law.harvard.edu>; from merldyn@gmx.ch on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:29:12AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:29:12AM -0500, merldyn@gmx.ch wrote: > Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 02:29:12 -0500 > From: merldyn@gmx.ch > To: merlyewn@gmx.ch > Subject: [dvd-discuss] ein gesundes Neues 2001 could we remove this spammer/idiot/whatever from the list, please? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 08:35:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA17810 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:35:44 -0500 Received: from charon.cargill.com (charon.cargill.com [167.136.225.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA17807 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:35:42 -0500 Received: from hermes.cargill.com (hermes.cargill.com [167.136.226.140]) by charon.cargill.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA12806 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:38:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com (cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com [10.25.1.21]) by hermes.cargill.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA18450 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:38:35 -0600 (CST) Received: by cdmpls02m.cdpoly.cargill.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:36:06 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Kroll, Dave" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] News Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:36:01 -0600 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 If you don't mind my asking, did they do it by phone, or fly over to do it in person? Thanks! David Kroll QA Coordinator 612-882-6452 Dave_Kroll@cdpoly.com -----Original Message----- From: Derek Fawcus [SMTP:dfawcus@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 7:26 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cc: jya@pipeline.com; jstyre@jstyre.com Subject: [dvd-discuss] News Since people asked before Christmas, I thought I'd send an update. The discovery (or is it deposition - I'm not sure of the correct term) on the jurisdiction issue for DVD-CCA trying to add me to their complaint occurred today, all 3.5 hours of it. The current schedule is for a hearing on 23rd January. DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 10:24:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18799 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:24:20 -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 KAA18795 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:24:14 -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, 8 Jan 2001 07:26:59 -0800 Subject: PERMANENT REMOVAL!! Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONESERVICE To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:26:55 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 07:26:59 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 q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com Sent by: To: undisclosed-recipients:; owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE 11/29/00 07:02 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss 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 Jan 8 10:23:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18790 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:23:52 -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 KAA18787 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:23:46 -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, 8 Jan 2001 07:26:24 -0800 Subject: REMOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: FROM JOHN To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:26:20 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 07:26:24 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 7iZCf930b@YAHOO.COM Sent by: To: undisclosed-recipients:; owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] FWD: FROM JOHN 11/30/00 04:23 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss 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 Mon Jan 8 10:31:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18998 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:31:51 -0500 Received: from dfawcus-laptop.cisco.com (edin-ios-14.cisco.com [144.254.112.90]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA18995 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:31:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 911 invoked by uid 69022); 8 Jan 2001 15:34:11 -0000 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:33:49 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus To: Dave_Kroll@cdpoly.com Cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: News Message-ID: <20010108153348.A691@edin-ios-14.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > If you don't mind my asking, did they do it by phone, or fly over to do it > in person? By phone, adding to BT's excess profits. DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 10:52:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19204 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:52:19 -0500 Received: from lawdmms.omm.com (mailrelay.omm.com [207.105.247.200]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA19201 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:52:16 -0500 Received: from 10.51.1.196 by lawdmms.omm.com with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.5); Mon, 08 Jan 2001 07:54:22 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 5880d39a-a3c3-11d4-8d61-00508bdca210 Received: by LABDCEXSC01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:48:21 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Barron, Austin" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] ICANN'T? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:48:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) X-WSS-ID: 16473D241249484-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu All- Quick ICANN question that I figure someone on here might be in a position to answer: Any idea what's hanging up the negotiations betwixt and between ICANN and the new TLD registries? -Austin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 10:53:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19250 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:53:24 -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 KAA19245 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:53:14 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14FeeU-0002nG-00; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:56:06 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14FeeU-0005D1-00; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:56:06 +0100 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:56:06 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: News Message-ID: <20010108165605.A16182@inka.de> References: <20010108153348.A691@edin-ios-14.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010108153348.A691@edin-ios-14.cisco.com>; from dfawcus@cisco.com on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:33:49PM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:33:49PM +0000, Derek Fawcus wrote: > > If you don't mind my asking, did they do it by phone, or fly over to do it > > in person? > > By phone, adding to BT's excess profits. Will there be a transcript available? Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 11:55:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19824 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:55:31 -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 LAA19821 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:55:30 -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, 8 Jan 2001 08:57:35 -0800 Subject: Re: PERMANENT REMOVAL!! Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THEPHONESERVICE To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:57:32 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 08:57:35 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 My appologies...I didn't look at the subject line when replying. Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: PERMANENT REMOVAL!! Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONESERVICE 01/08/01 07:29 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com Sent by: To: undisclosed-recipients:; owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE 11/29/00 07:02 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss 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 Jan 8 13:09:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21394 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:09:52 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21391 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:09:51 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08600 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:12:06 -0500 Message-Id: <200101081812.NAA08600@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: DVD Discussion List Subject: [dvd-discuss] The anti-circumvention provisions do not apply to DVD's Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:11:36 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I have posted to my website, with considerable reluctance considering its unfinished state, a draft of an article arguing that the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA simply do not apply to DVD's and similar tangible copies of copyrighted works. It is way over-long and needs extensive editing, especially in the latter parts, but the first part through the end of Section 3 is in good enough shape that I am not ashamed of it. On the other hand, I would have been happier if I could have found the time to clean up the remaining sections before I posted it. I will, however, be traveling for the rest of this week and won't have the chance to do that for some time, since the semester will be starting when I return. It seems to me that I should make the draft available to those concerned with the New York and Connecticut cases without any more delay, and so I am posting it now. If any one wishes to cite it, please make clear that it is a draft, and please do not cite any portions after the conclusion of Section 3. As I revise it I will post later versions to my web site. I would, of course, appreciate any comments that you might wish to make. Since the article is being written in PDF format, I have tried to include hyperlinks wherever possible to the materials that I cite. That includes links to the CSS and DeCSS code that I have also posted on my web site. I would also appreciate any suggestion about journals that might be interested in publishing it. Although it could be important in the context of the current DVD litigation I am afraid that it will not be of much importance in the future. If the argument is rejected by the courts, then my efforts to make that argument will not be of much interest; if, on the other hand, it is accepted, then there won't be much to say about it, except as an example of how path dependent the law is. Still, in the interim, it might attract some interest. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 13:50:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21739 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:50:06 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21735 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:49:59 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f08IpxX13010 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:52:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A5A0C8B.CE914B9E@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:52:59 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 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 Here is another case asking that same question: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15890.html "Ghosh outlines the ramifications of the case, which seem to hinge on the difference between speech and conduct. If a piece of software is classified as speech then all software falls outside government regulation because of the First Amendment. However, if it is classed as conduct it is no longer protected by the First Amendment, which could lead to government intrusion into new areas of academic research." An older article about the case written by the defandant: http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/ghosh-2000-03-p1.html "However, Judge Nelson dissented, finding that the mathematical formulas, the program, and the instructions were conduct, not speech." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 13:53:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21844 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:53:21 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21841 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:53:20 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f08IthX13899 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:55:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A5A0D6A.50DA64F8@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:56:43 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? References: <3A5A0C8B.CE914B9E@mindspring.com> 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 mickeym wrote: > Here is another case asking that same question: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15890.html > > "Ghosh outlines the ramifications of the case, which seem to hinge on > the difference between speech and conduct. If a piece of software is > classified as speech then all software falls outside government > regulation because of the First Amendment. However, if it is classed as > conduct it is no longer protected by the First Amendment, which could > lead to government intrusion into new areas of academic research." > > An older article about the case written by the defandant: Sorry, not written by the defendant...mm > > > http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/ghosh-2000-03-p1.html > > "However, Judge Nelson dissented, finding that the mathematical > formulas, the program, and the instructions were conduct, not speech." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 13:55:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21935 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:55:33 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21931 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:55:31 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08801 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:57:54 -0500 Message-Id: <200101081857.NAA08801@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Correction re The anti-circumvention provisions do not apply to DVD's In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:11:36 EST." <200101081812.NAA08600@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:57:54 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Correction. In my announcement of the availability of the draft of my article I gave the wrong URL as to where it can be found. It should have been: Thanks to James Tyre for spotting this. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 15:02:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22511 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:02:45 -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 PAA22508 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:02:42 -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, 8 Jan 2001 12:04:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:04:56 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 12:04:58 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 It's nothing new....it's been said before "those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them"... mickeym To: dvd-discuss Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales 12/28/00 08:01 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss 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 Mon Jan 8 15:04:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22572 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:04:48 -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 PAA22567 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:04:45 -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, 8 Jan 2001 12:07:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:07:32 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 12:07:34 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 The whole "acceptance" of the idea of shrink wrap contracts as being the norm ...How depressing.... John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales 12/29/00 08:29 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss 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 Mon Jan 8 15:06:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22652 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:06:30 -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 PAA22642 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:06:27 -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, 8 Jan 2001 12:09:12 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:09:10 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 12:09:13 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 If nothing else it's a restraint of trade..... Leland Ray To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb arvard.edu used book sales 12/29/00 01:22 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss 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 Mon Jan 8 15:15:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22884 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:15:16 -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 PAA22881 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:15:11 -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, 8 Jan 2001 12:17:58 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:17:56 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 12:17:58 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 The only authors that are really going to be hurt by what Amazon is doing are the ones whose books are not worth re-reading (about 99% of the NYTimes bestseller list). The issue here is not just Amazon but what about ALL other used bookstores that begin to sell online? (e.g., Powells in Oregon). Will the Author's guild attempt to stop them from similar practices? I wouldn't bet money on a negative. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales 12/29/00 03:44 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss > -----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 Mon Jan 8 15:21:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23040 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:21:57 -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 PAA23036 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:21:53 -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; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:24:35 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:24:33 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 12:24:35 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 used bookstores abound. Many people recycle paperbacks at them or donate them to charities (e.g., Goodwill). The issue here is the speed which the INTENET allows people to do this. This may be another one of our freedoms that a new generation of greedy bastards wants to eliminate. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" 01/02/01 01:32 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss I don't know about that. There are a lot of enjoyable reads that don't need to be permanent aquisitions. Paperbacks especially are essentially disposable in nature. What are you gonna do, read it and throw it away, or try and recoup a little of the cost by recycling it? Doesn't mean it's a bad book or that you are dissatisfied, just that you're done with it. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:14 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" > > > Richard Hartman writes: > > 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? > > An alternate interpretation of such a development is that if > buying used books online is as easy as buying new books > online, publishers will tend to favor the publication of books > that people want to keep, as opposed to books that people > buy, read once, and get rid of. > > One metric of a good author is how his or her books sell. > Another metric of a good author is how many of his or her > readers add the book to their permanent library, as opposed > to throw it away or resell it. Up until now, the resale rate > ofa book has not really been a factor in the success of an > author, because used books have never been a serious > threat to new book sales. That could be about to change, > and I'm not sure it's a bad development. > > I mean, for every used book on Amazon, there's a person who > paid full price for the book, and is now, days or weeks later, > unloading it for a small fraction of the price -- a strong indication > of a dissatisfied customer. Maybe the author of that book ought > to find another line of work anyhow. > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 15:24:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23160 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:24:11 -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 PAA23157 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:24:10 -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, 8 Jan 2001 12:26:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:26:33 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 12:26:34 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 In the case of books, the first sale doctrine does apply. Much of the discussion in this group has been the First sale doctrine for DVDs and how CSS really violates it. Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb arvard.edu used book sales 01/03/01 07:53 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 10:29:39AM -0600, John Schulien wrote: [ ... ] > 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. In a strict sense the author of this snipit above is right: the terms are not coming after a sale. What I doubt the person John is quoting understands is that it is difficult to say there was a sale at all if one accepts the validity of shrink-wrap licenses. Just because you give your money away doesn't mean you bought something. For example renting or paying membership due isn't a "sale" in the sense of exchanging ownership for a payment. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 15:29:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23247 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:29:38 -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 PAA23244 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:29:36 -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, 8 Jan 2001 12:32:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:32:20 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 12:32:22 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 While I doubt the book industry views it this way but I contend that if they take NO measures to collect review/promotional copies then they are abandoning them. As such they become the personal property of whom they give them. A personal property they CAN be sold. Also how many review/promotional copies are they talking about? A few hundred, thousand, million? If the percentage is small, then it's "much ado about NOTHING" Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb arvard.edu used book sales 01/03/01 09:09 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:52:30PM -0500, Ron Gustavson 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? > > 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. But these are not "their books sales". The copyright owner had "their" sale the first time the book entered the stream of commerce. The sales after that only involve the owner of the copy and the purchaser. I contend that the confusion is not whether a book is "used" or "new", but about what the word "sale" means. As far as an argument for limiting access, the letter from the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers contains a statement assuming that copyright owners have the related right of controlling some non-copyright use: In addition, Amazon does not appear to have taken any precautions to prevent Marketplace users from selling review copies or other promotional copies not intended for resale. This statement is close to a claim that the copyright owner can control things other than exclusive rights after relinquishing ownership of a copy. Review and promotional copies are often distributed as gifts, never being returned to the copyright owner. If the copyright owner decides to transfer ownership gratis (as a gift), does the recipient of the copy own the copy or not? If the recipient owns the copy, why can't she sell the copy? The Publishing Association's letter doesn't leave much room for the first sale doctrine. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 15:36:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23327 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:36:30 -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 PAA23324 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:36:28 -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 OAA24589 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:39:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A5A25FA.AEF768A@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:41:30 -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] Software: Speech or Conduct? 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 Trying to resolve the question of whether software is speech or conduct is sort of like trying to decide the question of whether ham is a vegetable or a mineral. Logically, I think it should be ... Writing and distributing software = speech. Using software = conduct. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 15:39:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23468 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:39:51 -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 PAA23464 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:39:48 -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 OAA25541 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:42:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A5A26BE.86CC9094@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:44:46 -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 Michael Rolenz writes: > Also how many > review/promotional copies are they talking about? A few hundred, thousand, > million? If the percentage is small, then it's "much ado about NOTHING" Right. This should be taken as a warning of what the publishing industry is going to try to do. Obviously, they like the "sweet deal" that the software industry has gotten, and they want to have similar control over their product. If they can successfully plant the idea that it is somehow illegal or improper to resell some legally-made, privately owned books, then they have their foot in the door as far as changing copyright law to allow publishers to legally prohibit or restrict used book sales in general. So yeah, this is a big deal. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 15:45:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23612 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:45:02 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23609 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:45:00 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09269; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:47:14 -0500 Message-Id: <200101082047.PAA09269@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:41:30 CST." <3A5A25FA.AEF768A@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:46:44 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Schulien writes: : Logically, I think it should be ... : : Writing and distributing software = speech. : Using software = conduct. Exactly. Although if the software one uses is a word processor then the conduct may be speech. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 15:49:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23739 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:49:05 -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 PAA23736 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:49:04 -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; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:51:46 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:51:44 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 12:51:46 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 Well put! change software to "making explosives" .... Writing instructions for making explosives and distributing it = speech using explosives to blow up building = conduct. QED. John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/08/01 12:41 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Trying to resolve the question of whether software is speech or conduct is sort of like trying to decide the question of whether ham is a vegetable or a mineral. Logically, I think it should be ... Writing and distributing software = speech. Using software = conduct. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 15:50:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23766 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:50:29 -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 PAA23758 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:50:27 -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, 8 Jan 2001 12:53:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:53:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 12:53:16 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 Oh I agree that what they ultimately want IS a big deal. My point was that their arguments regarding review/promo copies is a red herring....but then the MPAA has used similar ones on the DVD John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales 01/08/01 12:45 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael Rolenz writes: > Also how many > review/promotional copies are they talking about? A few hundred, thousand, > million? If the percentage is small, then it's "much ado about NOTHING" Right. This should be taken as a warning of what the publishing industry is going to try to do. Obviously, they like the "sweet deal" that the software industry has gotten, and they want to have similar control over their product. If they can successfully plant the idea that it is somehow illegal or improper to resell some legally-made, privately owned books, then they have their foot in the door as far as changing copyright law to allow publishers to legally prohibit or restrict used book sales in general. So yeah, this is a big deal. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 16:06:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA24085 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:06:38 -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 QAA24082 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:06:36 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17008 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:09:29 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:09:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Correction re The anti-circumvention provisions do not apply to DVD's Message-ID: <3A59D828.9953.1938EF9@localhost> In-reply-to: <200101081857.NAA08801@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:11:36 EST." <200101081812.NAA08600@samsara.law.cwru.edu> 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 No biggie, wasn't too hard to find even with the faulty url. On 8 Jan 2001, at 13:57, Peter D. Junger wrote: > > Correction. In my announcement of the availability of the draft of my > article I gave the wrong URL as to where it can be found. > > It should have been: > > > > Thanks to James Tyre for spotting this. > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law > School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: > http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 16:26:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA24752 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:26:16 -0500 Received: from train.sweet-haven.com (cx48762-a.cv1.sdca.home.com [24.0.158.22]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA24749 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:26:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (wolfgang@localhost) by train.sweet-haven.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f08LSZc04367 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:28:35 -0800 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:28:35 -0800 (PST) From: Lew Wolfgang To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] D-VHS to compete with DVD? 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 Hi Folks, JVC says its new Digital VCR will protect against piracy by not compressing the content. Movies will be too large to copy, says JVC. Quality will also be better than DVDs using VHS sized tapes. I am agast at how utterly stupid this one is! I knew we were in trouble when VHS won the VCR wars. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41045,00.html?tw=wn20010108 Regards, Lew Wolfgang From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 18:05:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA26415 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:05:31 -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 SAA26412 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:05:29 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02191 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:08:22 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:08:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A59F405.271.2006616@localhost> In-reply-to: <200101082047.PAA09269@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:41:30 CST." <3A5A25FA.AEF768A@uic.edu> 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 8 Jan 2001, at 15:46, Peter D. Junger wrote: > John Schulien writes: > > : Logically, I think it should be ... > : > : Writing and distributing software = speech. > : Using software = conduct. > > Exactly. Although if the software one uses is a word processor then > the conduct may be speech. Or even if you're using a program that has nothing ostensibly to do with speech, I think.. much non-verbal conduct qualifies as free speech. That aside it's seems that this simply distinction goes a long way - make that all the way - to explaining why 2600.com is a fall guy and how 1201 eliminates traditionally held rights, but outlowing the distribution of certain information. Someone refresh my memory, was this specific point hammered on enough before? I don't recall things being this simple. All those papers sent to the Librarian, and yet this simple thing seems to be a concrete reason why 1201 is unconstitutional. It simply outlaws distribution of certain information (much less inflammatory than that about explosives, to the state at any rate). But the fact that the state allows weaponry info to be freely circulated seems to point out that 1201 is simply backwards. (I trust someone will tell me if it isn't this simple.) sparky > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law > School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: > http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 18:11:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA26516 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:11:39 -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 SAA26513 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:11:36 -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, 8 Jan 2001 15:14:24 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:14:22 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/08/2001 03:14:24 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 It outlaws free speech for the economic benefit of a few and for the entertainment of many. What's wrong with that? (the idea that some people actually think that way makes me depressed when I think about it) "sparky" Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/08/01 03:10 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On 8 Jan 2001, at 15:46, Peter D. Junger wrote: > John Schulien writes: > > : Logically, I think it should be ... > : > : Writing and distributing software = speech. > : Using software = conduct. > > Exactly. Although if the software one uses is a word processor then > the conduct may be speech. Or even if you're using a program that has nothing ostensibly to do with speech, I think.. much non-verbal conduct qualifies as free speech. That aside it's seems that this simply distinction goes a long way - make that all the way - to explaining why 2600.com is a fall guy and how 1201 eliminates traditionally held rights, but outlowing the distribution of certain information. Someone refresh my memory, was this specific point hammered on enough before? I don't recall things being this simple. All those papers sent to the Librarian, and yet this simple thing seems to be a concrete reason why 1201 is unconstitutional. It simply outlaws distribution of certain information (much less inflammatory than that about explosives, to the state at any rate). But the fact that the state allows weaponry info to be freely circulated seems to point out that 1201 is simply backwards. (I trust someone will tell me if it isn't this simple.) sparky > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law > School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: > http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 18:34:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA26788 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:34:31 -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 SAA26785 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:34:28 -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 RAA07290 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:37:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A5A4FB3.5D7829F@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:39:31 -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] D-VHS to compete with DVD? 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 Lew Wolfgang writes: > JVC says its new Digital VCR will protect against piracy > by not compressing the content. Movies will be too large > to copy, says JVC. Quality will also be better than DVDs > using VHS sized tapes. > I am agast at how utterly stupid this one is! I knew we > were in trouble when VHS won the VCR wars. I see it a little differently. They are finally using some common sense -- something notably missing in the copyright industry in the last few years. The copyright industry has for years been able to stay ahead of piracy by doing one simple thing -- performing their market function. A publisher's reason for existance is to provide something that people can't just make for themselves. If you can make something yourself, then what's the point of buying it? The recording industry, and soon the motion picture industry in trouble largely because they have fallen behind on the technology. CDs were wildly profitable for TWO reasons. First, they eliminate many of the flaws of records and cassettes, and second, up until a few years ago, they were something that required a factory to produce. Not any more. Now, you can burn a CDR on any computer equipped with a CD writer. This has destroyed the ability of the music industry to deliver a product that cannot be trivially reproduced by an ordinary person. The recording industry should have rolled out DVD-Audio the instant that the first CDR drive hit the market, so that CDs would be an "obsolete" format, and DVD-Audio would be the new premium format, and pirate-proof (for a few years) due to the huge amount of data on the media. Instead, they focused their attention on suppressing the low-grade MP3 format, not even realizing (and to this day I don't think that they really understand), that MP3 is just a stepping stone to the adoption of file sharing using lossless compression formats. The motion picture industry is about to run into the same bale of razor wire. Sooner or later, the computer industry is going to roll out recordable DVD at an affordable price, and start retooling CDR manufacturing plants to start manufacturing recordable DVD discs. Even in a worst-case scenario -- if the discs are made deliberately incompatable with standalone players, people are going to write applications to allow you to rip a DVD (with DeCSS), and store the video on a recordable DVD in a computer-native format. The motion picture industry may attempt to prevent the use of recordable computer DVD media in standalone DVD video players, but this will backfire -- it will force the creation of a new, "de-facto" computer-based format, just like MP3 is a computer based format, which, having been probably created by free-software enthusiasts will have no provisions whatsoever for copy protection or encryption. Then, the savvy standalone player manufacturers will start including support for the de-facto format. Example: The new DVD players from companies like Apex which allow you to directly play a CDR filled with MP3 files. The recording industry NEVER asked for that feature. It came about as a direct result of consumer demand. So back to D-VHS. Here they're back to the CD formula that worked so well. Instead of keeping the data small and using encryption to try to prevent copying (the CSS approach), they are going to make the data file as large as possible and use encryption to prevent compression. Thus, once again tying content to media. BUT ... for the first time since the introduction of DVD, also offering an enormous increase in image quality in a recordable format. Of course, digital VCRs are just as succeptable to brute-force copying as DVDs, but this pushes the "Napsterization of Hollywood" problem back into the "Digital Audio Tape" level of a threat. Even if people can dupe a digital tape, they still have to exchange physical media, which makes the process cumbersome and inefficient. What I find intriguing is the idea that for the first time, there will be an uncompressed recordable digital video format available to the public. This should eliminate the major flaw of DVDs -- compression artifacts. Really, properly implemented, D-VHS has the potential to make DVDs completely obsolete, at about the same time that advances in computer and networking technology make the exchange of DVD images on the internet practical. Who will want the compressed, artifact-ridden DVD, when you can buy or rent a D-VHS tape and have the movie without compression artifacts, and at twice the resolution! The article does have one screamer: > The HDCP system can't be broken, however, > because only high definition sets will have the > HDCP decoder, according to Dan McCarron, > national product specialist in JVC's color TV division. and we all know that it's impossible to crack an encryption system without using a manufacturer-supplied decoding device. :-) Of course, the hackers of the world will perform their historic function of cracking and removing the copy protection and watermarking functions, the MPAA will scream bloody murder, and the eternal cycle will continue. - John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 18:57:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA27042 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:57:08 -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 SAA27039 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:57:06 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb57.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.87]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F00427AED for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:57:45 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9D9EF175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:57:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:57:24 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109005723.F15458@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:51:44PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:51:44PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > change software to "making explosives" .... > > Writing instructions for making explosives and distributing it = speech > using explosives to blow up building = conduct. > > QED. not exactly. just had this discussion in software-patent thread. basically, there's one very different thing about software (I mean the code itself, not what you do with it): it is both a description and a machine (in the broadest possible sense). it combines qualities that were seperated before. as such, the question is mood. the only CORRECT answer is "neither". it's not speech and it's not conduct, it's a third, new, intermediate or combined form. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 19:01:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27141 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:01:06 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA27138 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:01:04 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09812; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:03:19 -0500 Message-Id: <200101090003.TAA09812@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] D-VHS to compete with DVD? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:39:31 CST." <3A5A4FB3.5D7829F@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:02:49 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Schulien writes: : The motion picture industry is about to run into the same : bale of razor wire. Sooner or later, the computer industry : is going to roll out recordable DVD at an affordable price, : and start retooling CDR manufacturing plants to start : manufacturing recordable DVD discs. It looks as if it is already happening. See -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 19:08:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27274 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:08:58 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA27271 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:08:57 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09848; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:11:21 -0500 Message-Id: <200101090011.TAA09848@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:57:24 +0100." <20010109005723.F15458@lemuria.org> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:11:21 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom writes: : On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:51:44PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: : > change software to "making explosives" .... : > : > Writing instructions for making explosives and distributing it = speech : > using explosives to blow up building = conduct. : > : > QED. : : not exactly. just had this discussion in software-patent thread. : basically, there's one very different thing about software (I mean the : code itself, not what you do with it): it is both a description and a : machine (in the broadest possible sense). it combines qualities that : were seperated before. as such, the question is mood. the only CORRECT : answer is "neither". it's not speech and it's not conduct, it's a : third, new, intermediate or combined form. Nope. It is not a machine in any sense when it is sitting on a floppy disk or a web site or on a sheet of paper. When someone uses a program by running it on a computer then the combination of the software and the computer can be called a machine. So when I erased all the MSWindows gunk and copied a Linux distribution onto my hard drive my computer comes up as a Linux machine rather than crashes as a MSWindows machine. It is, however, the physical computer that is the machine, not the Linux software. The patent argument is that depending on the software that is being run the computer becomes a different sort of machine than it was before. But the software by itself is just a text, it is not a machine. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 19:23:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27410 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:23:38 -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 TAA27407 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:23:36 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb57.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.87]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF2A27AD9 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 01:24:15 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7B428175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 01:24:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 01:24:03 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109012402.O15458@lemuria.org> References: <20010109005723.F15458@lemuria.org> <200101090011.TAA09848@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200101090011.TAA09848@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:11:21PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:11:21PM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: > Nope. It is not a machine in any sense when it is sitting on a floppy > disk or a web site or on a sheet of paper. it's not speech either if nobody reads it. but the code is executable, even if it's not currently being executed. like an explosive that is an explosive even if it's not currently exploding. as a matter of fact, our common language is much clearer than legalese can ever hope to be: exploSIVE, executABLE. a potential, not an actuality. much like the freedom of speech protects not only the act of standing on the corner and speaking, but also those acts necessary to make that possible. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 19:45:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27870 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:45:04 -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 TAA27867 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:45:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 931 invoked by uid 69022); 9 Jan 2001 00:47:29 -0000 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:47:07 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: News Message-ID: <20010109004706.A679@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Will there be a transcript available? > > Sham Well I'd like to see one, just to see how it comes over in print. At the moment I've not got a copy. I don't know if I'll be supplied with one at this stage. Anyway I thinnk it'll be a public document, meaning anyone could apply to the court for a copy. Ther'll probably be a fee required. DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 19:53:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA28005 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:53:28 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA28002 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:53:26 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09999; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:55:41 -0500 Message-Id: <200101090055.TAA09999@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 2001 01:24:03 +0100." <20010109012402.O15458@lemuria.org> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:55:11 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom writes: : On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:11:21PM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: : > Nope. It is not a machine in any sense when it is sitting on a floppy : > disk or a web site or on a sheet of paper. : : it's not speech either if nobody reads it. but the code is executable, : even if it's not currently being executed. like an explosive that is an : explosive even if it's not currently exploding. as a matter of fact, : our common language is much clearer than legalese can ever hope to be: : exploSIVE, executABLE. a potential, not an actuality. much like the : freedom of speech protects not only the act of standing on the corner : and speaking, but also those acts necessary to make that possible. I fail to see what this has to do with anything we are discussing. If I draft a will for you that form is executable and it is not a will until you sign it and you later die. Executable wills, contracts, and computer programs are just writings protected by the first amendment. The act of executing the will or the contract or the computer program is an act, but the writing still remains a writing, and nothing more. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 20:10:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA28203 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:10:55 -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 UAA28200 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:10:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12255 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:13:47 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:13:46 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? In-Reply-To: <20010109012402.O15458@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 Do you talk to yourself? Is that free speech? On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Tom wrote: T>On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:11:21PM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: T>> Nope. It is not a machine in any sense when it is sitting on a floppy T>> disk or a web site or on a sheet of paper. T> T>it's not speech either if nobody reads it. but the code is executable, T>even if it's not currently being executed. like an explosive that is an T>explosive even if it's not currently exploding. as a matter of fact, T>our common language is much clearer than legalese can ever hope to be: T>exploSIVE, executABLE. a potential, not an actuality. much like the T>freedom of speech protects not only the act of standing on the corner T>and speaking, but also those acts necessary to make that possible. T> T> T> -- 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 Jan 8 20:27:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA28474 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:27:22 -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 UAA28471 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:27:20 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:30:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:30:12 -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 It's not just the speed, it's the speed multiplied by the greater reach to more possible buyers. -- -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, January 08, 2001 12:25 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" > > > > used bookstores abound. Many people recycle paperbacks at > them or donate > them to charities (e.g., Goodwill). The issue here is the > speed which the > INTENET allows people to do this. This may be another one of > our freedoms > that a new generation of greedy bastards wants to eliminate. > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a > > "successful author" > > > 01/02/01 01:32 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > I don't know about that. There are a lot of > enjoyable reads that don't need to be permanent > aquisitions. Paperbacks especially are essentially > disposable in nature. What are you gonna do, read > it and throw it away, or try and recoup a little of > the cost by recycling it? Doesn't mean it's a bad > book or that you are dissatisfied, just that you're > done with it. > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:14 PM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" > > > > > > Richard Hartman writes: > > > 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? > > > > An alternate interpretation of such a development is that if > > buying used books online is as easy as buying new books > > online, publishers will tend to favor the publication of books > > that people want to keep, as opposed to books that people > > buy, read once, and get rid of. > > > > One metric of a good author is how his or her books sell. > > Another metric of a good author is how many of his or her > > readers add the book to their permanent library, as opposed > > to throw it away or resell it. Up until now, the resale rate > > ofa book has not really been a factor in the success of an > > author, because used books have never been a serious > > threat to new book sales. That could be about to change, > > and I'm not sure it's a bad development. > > > > I mean, for every used book on Amazon, there's a person who > > paid full price for the book, and is now, days or weeks later, > > unloading it for a small fraction of the price -- a strong > indication > > of a dissatisfied customer. Maybe the author of that book ought > > to find another line of work anyhow. > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 20:51:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA28991 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:51:44 -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 UAA28988 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:51:42 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA67545 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:54:36 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:54:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5A1AFC.18597.29897A8@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010109005723.F15458@lemuria.org> References: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:51:44PM -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 9 Jan 2001, at 0:57, Tom wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:51:44PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > wrote: > change software to "making explosives" .... > > Writing > instructions for making explosives and distributing it = speech > > using explosives to blow up building = conduct. > > QED. > > not exactly. just had this discussion in software-patent thread. > basically, there's one very different thing about software (I mean the > code itself, not what you do with it): it is both a description and a > machine (in the broadest possible sense). it combines qualities that > were seperated before. as such, the question is mood. the only CORRECT > answer is "neither". it's not speech and it's not conduct, it's a > third, new, intermediate or combined form. Whatever the virtues of discussing code as a machine - which incidentally sounds like great fun - I'm guessing that it's rather academic in regard to the DeCSS situation. The law only needs to ask whether code is/can be speech. It doesn't matter if its essence is truly hybrid, at least not now I think. Code, as a concept, is susceptible to the concept of "speech" so any wrangling over new concepts that need to be injected into the discourse of the law won't help. sparky > > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 8 22:46:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA32424 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:46:49 -0500 Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA32421 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:46:47 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16874 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:47:05 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA4kaa7G; Mon Jan 8 20:46:58 2001 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 UAA29222 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:45:04 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:45:04 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <3A5A26BE.86CC9094@uic.edu> In-Reply-To: <3A5A26BE.86CC9094@uic.edu> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01010820450400.18543@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 08 January 2001 13:44, you wrote: # Michael Rolenz writes: # > Also how many # > review/promotional copies are they talking about? A few hundred, thousand, # > million? If the percentage is small, then it's "much ado about NOTHING" # # Right. This should be taken as a warning of what the publishing # industry is going to try to do. Obviously, they like the "sweet deal" # that the software industry has gotten, and they want to have similar # control over their product. # # If they can successfully plant the idea that it is somehow illegal or # improper to resell some legally-made, privately owned books, # then they have their foot in the door as far as changing copyright law # to allow publishers to legally prohibit or restrict used book sales in # general. # # So yeah, this is a big deal. But that's a GOOD thing. Consider that the (book) publishers are agreeing with us that books, software, and other digital content should be accorded the exact same legal status. IMHO the only way the current situation regarding digital content could possibly have arisen was by the courts missing that point, so having the (paper) publishers challenging the distinction is much more likely to end with the digital stuff being treated as books are than vice versa. -- | 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 Jan 8 23:51:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA00302 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:51:19 -0500 Received: from c007.snv.cp.net (c007-h015.c007.snv.cp.net [209.228.33.222]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA32767 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:51:16 -0500 Received: (cpmta 18858 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2001 20:53:39 -0800 Received: from emerald2.oz.net (HELO emerald.oz.net) (216.39.128.2) by smtp.test.theriver.com (209.228.33.222) with SMTP; 8 Jan 2001 20:53:39 -0800 X-Sent: 9 Jan 2001 04:53:39 GMT Received: from super (super.beat.st [216.39.174.40]) by emerald.oz.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA29281 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:48:57 -0800 (PST) From: "John Dempsey" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:53:39 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <200101090011.TAA09848@samsara.law.cwru.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Nope. It is not a machine in any sense when it is sitting on a floppy > disk or a web site or on a sheet of paper. Even if it were a machine--a gun, a bomb--I would have every legal right to take it apart and see how it works. Until now. I am not entirely uncomfortable with the concept that it is a machine. Patents applied to mechanical devices long before they covered logical ones (mechanical purists can disagree later). But it is an established history of commerce that machines can be dismantled, fortified, rebuilt, re-purposed. Only when re-selling a derivative should there be some possible restrictions. But taking it apart and describing it? Code or gears or anything, that's not illegal. > The patent argument is that depending on the software > that is being run the computer becomes a different sort of machine than it > was before. > But the software by itself is just a text, it is not a machine. It is instructions for a complicated machine, which transform the machine into a new kind of machine. I can accept the idea that the instructions which do this are in metaphorical but identifiable ways, machines themselves. But I am as authorized to take apart this 'machine' as take apart 'text'. So we can disagree and still agree. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 03:32:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA01696 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 03:32:30 -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 DAA01693 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 03:32:28 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14FuFX-0001pk-00; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:35:23 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14FuFZ-0002eb-00; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:35:25 +0100 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:35:25 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Another evil of player control: Forced subtitles Message-ID: <20010109093525.A8906@inka.de> References: <200101090011.TAA09848@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from gifs@oz.net on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:53:39PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've recently heard from a friend in Denmark that the Scandinavian release of "Bride of Chucky" has subtitles in 4 languages, but when played in a sanctioned player, does not have the option of playing *without* any subtitles. The box carries the floowing notice in tiny print: "tekster kan ikke fravalges" Translation (I don't speak Danish, so can't verify this): "Subtitles cannot be turned off" Indicating that it was done deliberately and is not an authoring bug. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 04:20:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA02004 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 04:20:58 -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 EAA01999 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 04:20:52 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb62.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.98]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10E427ABA; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:21:23 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2FF1A175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:21:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:21:11 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109102110.E15859@lemuria.org> References: <20010109012402.O15458@lemuria.org> <200101090055.TAA09999@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200101090055.TAA09999@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:55:11PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:55:11PM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: > I fail to see what this has to do with anything we are discussing. the point is that there's been a lot of going back and forth over whether or not code is speech (EFF position) or piracy (MPAA position). I'd like to add that it is something new, and the "speech/conduct" black/white painting is entirely missing the point. much like calling a photon a wave or a particle is only part of the truth, no matter which one you choose. I do believe that a point like this is much more easily digestable to a court and much more difficult to debunk for the opposing site than the one-side "it's speech" position we've been taking so far. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 04:25:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA02084 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 04:25:33 -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 EAA02078 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 04:25:19 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb62.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.98]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B13227ABA for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:25:56 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AE3E5175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:25:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:25:44 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109102544.F15859@lemuria.org> References: ; <20010109005723.F15458@lemuria.org> <3A5A1AFC.18597.29897A8@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A5A1AFC.18597.29897A8@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:54:36PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:54:36PM -0600, sparky wrote: > Whatever the virtues of discussing code as a machine - which > incidentally sounds like great fun - I'm guessing that it's rather > academic in regard to the DeCSS situation. The law only needs to > ask whether code is/can be speech. It doesn't matter if its essence > is truly hybrid, at least not now I think. the point I'm making is that I believe a hybrid nature is much more believable to non-technical people. "if you look at this piece of COBOL code, your honour, you can easily see how it almost explains itself. other programming languages are more cryptic to those unfamiliar with them, but equally easy to understand to those working within the field, much like a chemical textbook which is a mystery to anyone without chemics knowledge but very clear to anyone with. the plaintiffs claim that code is conduct because it does something. we do not deny that this is so, but we point out that code ALSO is speech, as can be most clearly seen from the examples you are holding in your hand right now." (add the usual paragraphs about how it is preferred by programmers because it's shorter and clearer than prosa explanations much like mathematicians use formulas, etc.) -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 06:43:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA03898 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:43:08 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA03895 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:43:06 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04868; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:46:00 GMT Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:46:00 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20010109102110.E15859@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:55:11PM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote: > > I fail to see what this has to do with anything we are discussing. > > the point is that there's been a lot of going back and forth over > whether or not code is speech (EFF position) or piracy (MPAA position). > I'd like to add that it is something new, and the "speech/conduct" > black/white painting is entirely missing the point. > I think I agree with that, but.... > much like calling a > photon a wave or a particle is only part of the truth, no matter which > one you choose. > I do believe that a point like this is much more easily digestable to a > court and much more difficult to debunk for the opposing site than the > one-side "it's speech" position we've been taking so far. > Trouble is, it isn't (IMHO) a useful position for us. If we were to convince some judge that code is "speecon" (something that's both speech and conduct), then we'd find ourselves in a sort-of legal limbo. There would be no precedent any longer for us to claim that speecon is protected by the 1st amendment. So (presumably) the judge would have to just decide the issue based on his/her opinion on the day, and we'd be stuck with that decision if it went against us. Not just that, but every other "evil corporation" vs. internet case in the future would draw on this landmark decision about speecon, it being the only precedent available. Anyway - why are we arguing this point? Doesn't the phrase "free speech" already mean freedom of speech, writing, opinion, performing arts, worship etc? Or is this not the case in a strictly legalistic sense? I'd say that computer programming was a form of writing. It communicates your ideas to somewhere else by means of symbols committed to a substrate. If so, then if "writing" is regarded as an aspect of "free speech", then it must be protected by the 1st amendment. If so then computer programming is protected too. What is the situation regarding player-piano rolls or the punched cards or paper tape used for controlling Jaquard looms? These are the mechanical or electromechanical predecessors to computer programming after all. -- 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 Tue Jan 9 07:09:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA04162 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:09:25 -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 HAA04159 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:09:24 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5AD9727AB9; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:10:03 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:10:03 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109131003.B17582@lemuria.org> References: <20010109102110.E15859@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 steve@i2it.co.uk on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:46:00AM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:46:00AM +0000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > Trouble is, it isn't (IMHO) a useful position for us. If we were to convince > some judge that code is "speecon" (something that's both speech and conduct), > then we'd find ourselves in a sort-of legal limbo. which is the whole problem of the whole thing anyways. law moves slowly, and at this point I'd say the most advanced laws cover the 1970s (signature laws, etc). > There would be no precedent > any longer for us to claim that speecon is protected by the 1st amendment. > So (presumably) the judge would have to just decide the issue based on his/her > opinion on the day, and we'd be stuck with that decision if it went against us. > Not just that, but every other "evil corporation" vs. internet case in the > future would draw on this landmark decision about speecon, it being the only > precedent available. what do we stand to win if the judge decides that code is NOT speech? I dare to say that this would set an equally bad precedence. if, on the other hand, it is agreed that code is at least in part speech, it should be obvious to demand at least some 1st amendment protection for it, if not the whole load ("if it is in part speech, then the speech part is protected. since it can not exist without the non-speech part, the whole must be protected or the 1st amendment has been violated."). > Anyway - why are we arguing this point? Doesn't the phrase "free speech" > already mean freedom of speech, writing, opinion, performing arts, worship etc? > Or is this not the case in a strictly legalistic sense? I dunno. I don't even care much, since I'm not an american. I do care for getting the issue right, however, in preference to bending it in order to fit one specific countries law of the day. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 08:54:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA05184 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:54:27 -0500 Received: from TmpStr (61-216-20-95.HINET-IP.hinet.net [61.216.20.95]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA05180 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:54:22 -0500 Message-Id: <200101091354.IAA05180@eon.law.harvard.edu> From: "Sencera" To: "" Organization: Sencera X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Subject: [dvd-discuss] offer sensor elements for ..... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:59:55 +0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dear sir, We are the Manufacture of follow sensor elements: - Own patent's shock sensor element for car alarm and lock. - Own patent's tilt switch and sensor element. (instead of Mercury type) - Shock detector model 201C type, for car alarm with VR sensitive adjust - Shock detector model VB type, for security use such as window shock detecting. - Ultrasonic transducer 40KHz for car security use. - High power ultrasonic transducer from 28KHz to 1.0MHz for ultrasonic machine use. -Air pollution sensor element -Alcohol sensor element -Atmospheric pressure sensor element -Carbonate monoxide sensor element -LPG and Nature Gas sensor element -Capacitive humidity sensor element -Smoke sensor element -Temperature sensor element measurement range from -40 C to +300 C, resolution:1%, 3%, 5% Products design, OEM are available. Any interesting, please contact Sencera Co., Ltd. Mr. Justine Lee http://welcome.to/sencera justinel@ms14.hinet.net Fax:886-2-27041279 Tel:886-2-27046595 Thanks From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 09:29:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA05617 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:29:39 -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 JAA05608 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:29:33 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA40215 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:32:29 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:32:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5ACC9C.4657.1DFEEE@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010109102544.F15859@lemuria.org> References: <3A5A1AFC.18597.29897A8@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:54:36PM -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 9 Jan 2001, at 10:25, Tom wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:54:36PM -0600, sparky wrote: > > Whatever the virtues of discussing code as a machine - which > > incidentally sounds like great fun - I'm guessing that it's rather > > academic in regard to the DeCSS situation. The law only needs to ask > > whether code is/can be speech. It doesn't matter if its essence is > > truly hybrid, at least not now I think. > > the point I'm making is that I believe a hybrid nature is much more > believable to non-technical people. > > "if you look at this piece of COBOL code, your honour, you can easily > see how it almost explains itself. other programming languages are > more cryptic to those unfamiliar with them, but equally easy to > understand to those working within the field, much like a chemical > textbook which is a mystery to anyone without chemics knowledge but > very clear to anyone with. the plaintiffs claim that code is conduct > because it does something. we do not deny that this is so, but we > point out that code ALSO is speech, as can be most clearly seen from > the examples you are holding in your hand right now." But this really isn't an argument toward the hybrid nature of code. Your scenario is an appeal to a judge to see that code qualifies as speech, which is all that is necessary and sufficient for the law to do to start down the path to "1201 is unconstitutional". No one on the side of the defense is arguing that code is NOT conduct (to use the parlance of this thread). In that sense, they are arguing your position by default, because they argue that code is speech. Your previous post, however, made it sound like we should positively claim that code is not truly categorizable as one or the other, and like this should hold some sort of weight in court of law. If all your really saying is that code can be both, and not that we need to argue that either categorization requires the other for a full legal understanding of code - this list is all *over* that (as are, more importantly, the defense lawyers). sparky > > (add the usual paragraphs about how it is preferred by programmers > because it's shorter and clearer than prosa explanations much like > mathematicians use formulas, etc.) > > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 09:29:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA05613 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:29:36 -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 JAA05606 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:29:33 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA40200 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:32:28 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:32:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5ACC9C.31226.1DFEF8@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010109131003.B17582@lemuria.org> References: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:46:00AM +0000 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 9 Jan 2001, at 13:10, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:46:00AM +0000, Steve Hosgood wrote: > > Trouble is, it isn't (IMHO) a useful position for us. If we were to > > convince some judge that code is "speecon" (something that's both > > speech and conduct), then we'd find ourselves in a sort-of legal > > limbo. > > which is the whole problem of the whole thing anyways. law moves > slowly, and at this point I'd say the most advanced laws cover the > 1970s (signature laws, etc). > > > > There would be no precedent > > any longer for us to claim that speecon is protected by the 1st > > amendment. So (presumably) the judge would have to just decide the > > issue based on his/her opinion on the day, and we'd be stuck with > > that decision if it went against us. Not just that, but every other > > "evil corporation" vs. internet case in the future would draw on > > this landmark decision about speecon, it being the only precedent > > available. > > what do we stand to win if the judge decides that code is NOT speech? > I dare to say that this would set an equally bad precedence. if, on > the other hand, it is agreed that code is at least in part speech, it > should be obvious to demand at least some 1st amendment protection for > it, if not the whole load ("if it is in part speech, then the speech > part is protected. since it can not exist without the non-speech part, > the whole must be protected or the 1st amendment has been violated."). You have to understand that part of law is not just where you get to, but how you got there. That's why precedent is so important. If we get to a decision against "code = speech" based on completely new legal categories made up specifically for this case - which would be necessary if we made the "code is hybrid" claim - then those categories are the ones we are stuck with on appeal. But the appeal trial will be based on the same categories to which we just lost. The only precedent set is the one in which we just lost. So the outlook is very bad. But, if we get a decision against "code = speech" based on questions of "Is it conduct and only conduct? Is it speech, in addition to being conduct?" then if we lose, we still have many previous cases with which to argue against that court's interpretation in the appeal. That a ruling against code as speech, based on these current legal categories, would be as bad a ruling against based on new categories. Obviously I don't have the final word, but in fact Kaplan did not find that code's nature as speech is sufficiently strong to rule in favor of the defense; BUT there have been EXTREMELY strong rulings by other courts precisely in favor of code's nature as speech. So Kaplan's ruling does not seem as bad as it would if there were no other decisions to which to compare it. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 09:50:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA05933 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:50:33 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA05930 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:50:28 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11239; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:52:44 -0500 Message-Id: <200101091452.JAA11239@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:32:28 CST." <3A5ACC9C.4657.1DFEEE@localhost> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:52:14 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "sparky" writes: : No one on the side of the defense is arguing that code is NOT : conduct (to use the parlance of this thread). In that sense, they are : arguing your position by default, because they argue that code is : speech. Your previous post, however, made it sound like we should : positively claim that code is not truly categorizable as one or the : other, and like this should hold some sort of weight in court of law. : If all your really saying is that code can be both, and not that we : need to argue that either categorization requires the other for a full : legal understanding of code - this list is all *over* that (as are, more : importantly, the defense lawyers). : I quite agree with your major point, but wish to point out that I at least take the position quite strongly that code is not conduct. Code is just a writing, a text. On the other hand speech is a type of conduct. As is the publication and other communication of code. And the writing of code for that matter. So the question is not whether something is speech or conduct, but whether particular conduct is speech (and whether, if it is, it is ``pure speech''). On the other hand---that gets us up to three hands---I don't think we need to confuse ourselves by talking about speech at all when we deal with the publication of code. The publication of information is protected by the freedom of the press. Looked at that way, any discussion of ``expression'' or ``functionality'' becomes irrelevant. If the freedom of the press protects the publisher of logarithms, as it surely does, then it protects the publisher of code. And in that context the courts have never suggested that bans on the publication of information need be subjected only to intermediate scrutiny. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 09:49:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA05924 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:49:51 -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 JAA05921 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:49:47 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 97CB127AB9; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:50:25 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:50:25 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109155025.C19446@lemuria.org> References: <3A5A1AFC.18597.29897A8@localhost>; <20010109102544.F15859@lemuria.org> <3A5ACC9C.4657.1DFEEE@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A5ACC9C.4657.1DFEEE@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:32:28AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:32:28AM -0600, sparky wrote: > But this really isn't an argument toward the hybrid nature of code. > Your scenario is an appeal to a judge to see that code qualifies as > speech, which is all that is necessary and sufficient for the law to > do to start down the path to "1201 is unconstitutional". yes, we all know that. :) > No one on the side of the defense is arguing that code is NOT > conduct (to use the parlance of this thread). In that sense, they are > arguing your position by default, because they argue that code is > speech. Your previous post, however, made it sound like we should > positively claim that code is not truly categorizable as one or the > other, and like this should hold some sort of weight in court of law. > If all your really saying is that code can be both, and not that we > need to argue that either categorization requires the other for a full > legal understanding of code - this list is all *over* that (as are, more > importantly, the defense lawyers). I *am* saying that code is not speech, but it's not conduct either - it's both. think photon/wave/particle. I'm not sure what exactly to argue in a court. common sense and intelligence seemingly have to be dropped at the door, alongside explosives and guns. and just to be completely honest, I think the whole movie mafia should be taken out and shot. seriously. but all that's not of primary importance. for the court case, it may (as said above: I'm not sure about any of this) be positive to provide the court with a more balanced, less black/white argument. the plaintiffs are already arguing extremely binary, we shouldn't follow them suit. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 10:15:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA06289 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:15:01 -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 KAA06286 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:15:00 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA65934 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:17:56 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:17:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5AD744.24868.479FB3@localhost> In-reply-to: <200101091452.JAA11239@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:32:28 CST." <3A5ACC9C.4657.1DFEEE@localhost> 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 9 Jan 2001, at 9:52, Peter D. Junger wrote: > On the other hand---that gets us up to three hands---I don't think we > need to confuse ourselves by talking about speech at all when we deal > with the publication of code. The publication of information is > protected by the freedom of the press. Exactly.. it seems so simple when it is put this way. Was it put this way to Kaplan? I guess the overarching "putting-to" must have taken this form, but it seems so direct and simple when we say: The information was published/distributed. The distribution of information is a G-D right, regardless of what offenses the distributors may have done or what another does with the distributed info. Short step to, any law which says otherwise is in conflict with the constitution, or interpretations of it heretofore. > > Looked at that way, any discussion of ``expression'' or > ``functionality'' becomes irrelevant. If the freedom of the press > protects the publisher of logarithms, as it surely does, then it > protects the publisher of code. And in that context the courts have > never suggested that bans on the publication of information need be > subjected only to intermediate scrutiny. > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law > School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: > http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 10:28:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA06492 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:28:22 -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 KAA06487 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:28:19 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05863; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:31:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:31:06 -0500 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200101091531.KAA05863@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <20010109131003.B17582@lemuria.org> References: <20010109102110.E15859@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom wrote: >On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:46:00AM +0000, Steve Hosgood wrote: >> >> There would be no precedent >> any longer for us to claim that speecon is protected by the 1st amendment. >> So (presumably) the judge would have to just decide the issue based on his/her >> opinion on the day, and we'd be stuck with that decision if it went against us. >> Not just that, but every other "evil corporation" vs. internet case in the >> future would draw on this landmark decision about speecon, it being the only >> precedent available. > >what do we stand to win if the judge decides that code is NOT speech? I >dare to say that this would set an equally bad precedence. if, on the >other hand, it is agreed that code is at least in part speech, it >should be obvious to demand at least some 1st amendment protection for >it, if not the whole load ("if it is in part speech, then the speech >part is protected. since it can not exist without the non-speech part, >the whole must be protected or the 1st amendment has been violated."). If code is declared to be NOT speech, what does that do to its copyrightability? BTW, why is machine generated executable code copyrighted? Shouldn't only the human generated source be subject to copyright? -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 10:46:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07007 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:46:09 -0500 Received: from dial199.roadrunner.com (sf-du199.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.199]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA07002 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:46:04 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial199.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01778 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:37:06 -0700 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:37:06 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109083706.C1596@localhost> References: <3A5A1AFC.18597.29897A8@localhost>; <20010109102544.F15859@lemuria.org> <3A5ACC9C.4657.1DFEEE@localhost> <20010109155025.C19446@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: <20010109155025.C19446@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:50:25PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:50:25PM +0100, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:32:28AM -0600, sparky wrote: > > But this really isn't an argument toward the hybrid nature of code. > > Your scenario is an appeal to a judge to see that code qualifies as > > speech, which is all that is necessary and sufficient for the law to > > do to start down the path to "1201 is unconstitutional". > > yes, we all know that. :) > > > > No one on the side of the defense is arguing that code is NOT > > conduct (to use the parlance of this thread). In that sense, they are > > arguing your position by default, because they argue that code is > > speech. Your previous post, however, made it sound like we should > > positively claim that code is not truly categorizable as one or the > > other, and like this should hold some sort of weight in court of law. > > If all your really saying is that code can be both, and not that we > > need to argue that either categorization requires the other for a full > > legal understanding of code - this list is all *over* that (as are, more > > importantly, the defense lawyers). > > I *am* saying that code is not speech, but it's not conduct either - > it's both. think photon/wave/particle. I believe there is a fallacy here --- namely a showing that something has property "A" fails to demonstrate the absense of property "B". In particular I'm looking at where you've written "code is not speech" and then on the next line "it's both". We have property "A" and property "B". I don't think one should say that "A and B true" is also "not A". As I understand Peter Junger's position, a showing that something is "functional" fails to demonstrate that it is "not-speech" (vibrating vocal cords, pushing keys on a keyboard, scratching paper with an ink-laden ball or wire, etc. are all still speech.) [ ... ] > but all that's not of primary importance. for the court case, it may > (as said above: I'm not sure about any of this) be positive to provide > the court with a more balanced, less black/white argument. the > plaintiffs are already arguing extremely binary, we shouldn't follow > them suit. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 10:51:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07211 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:51:20 -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 KAA07208 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:51:18 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:54:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:53:58 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 07:54:00 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 The fact that software may be used to program the machine does not invalidate the argument nor should this additional fact be allowed to cloud the issue. The ease with which a program can be converted from "speech" to " conduct" is irrelevant. Similarly, as with making explosives, more is involved in the process. One still needs to have the tools and expertise. Also , if it has the properties of speech and of conduct it cannot be neither. The problem that the legal profession is falling into when dealing with this issue is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/08/01 04:02 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:51:44PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > change software to "making explosives" .... > > Writing instructions for making explosives and distributing it = speech > using explosives to blow up building = conduct. > > QED. not exactly. just had this discussion in software-patent thread. basically, there's one very different thing about software (I mean the code itself, not what you do with it): it is both a description and a machine (in the broadest possible sense). it combines qualities that were seperated before. as such, the question is mood. the only CORRECT answer is "neither". it's not speech and it's not conduct, it's a third, new, intermediate or combined form. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 10:55:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07347 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:55:03 -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 KAA07341 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:55:00 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:57:48 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:57:45 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 07:57:48 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 Yes. And more is needed to make the source code into executable than putting it onto the hard disk. - Compilers, libraries, linkers, and even an operating system. "Peter D. Junger" cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Sent by: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Conduct? arvard.edu 01/08/01 04:13 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Tom writes: : On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:51:44PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: : > change software to "making explosives" .... : > : > Writing instructions for making explosives and distributing it = speech : > using explosives to blow up building = conduct. : > : > QED. : : not exactly. just had this discussion in software-patent thread. : basically, there's one very different thing about software (I mean the : code itself, not what you do with it): it is both a description and a : machine (in the broadest possible sense). it combines qualities that : were seperated before. as such, the question is mood. the only CORRECT : answer is "neither". it's not speech and it's not conduct, it's a : third, new, intermediate or combined form. Nope. It is not a machine in any sense when it is sitting on a floppy disk or a web site or on a sheet of paper. When someone uses a program by running it on a computer then the combination of the software and the computer can be called a machine. So when I erased all the MSWindows gunk and copied a Linux distribution onto my hard drive my computer comes up as a Linux machine rather than crashes as a MSWindows machine. It is, however, the physical computer that is the machine, not the Linux software. The patent argument is that depending on the software that is being run the computer becomes a different sort of machine than it was before. But the software by itself is just a text, it is not a machine. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:03:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07809 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:03:29 -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 LAA07806 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:03:28 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:06:17 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:06:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 08:06:17 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 Agreed.. The speed and breath to reach more buyers faster is what they fear. On the one hand they want to use the INTERNET to push their books and merchandise onto the public FASTER with WIDER distribution but they want to ignore or make the Pandora's box go away. Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" 01/08/01 05:32 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss It's not just the speed, it's the speed multiplied by the greater reach to more possible buyers. -- -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, January 08, 2001 12:25 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" > > > > used bookstores abound. Many people recycle paperbacks at > them or donate > them to charities (e.g., Goodwill). The issue here is the > speed which the > INTENET allows people to do this. This may be another one of > our freedoms > that a new generation of greedy bastards wants to eliminate. > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a > > "successful author" > > > 01/02/01 01:32 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > I don't know about that. There are a lot of > enjoyable reads that don't need to be permanent > aquisitions. Paperbacks especially are essentially > disposable in nature. What are you gonna do, read > it and throw it away, or try and recoup a little of > the cost by recycling it? Doesn't mean it's a bad > book or that you are dissatisfied, just that you're > done with it. > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:14 PM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Metrics of a "successful author" > > > > > > Richard Hartman writes: > > > 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? > > > > An alternate interpretation of such a development is that if > > buying used books online is as easy as buying new books > > online, publishers will tend to favor the publication of books > > that people want to keep, as opposed to books that people > > buy, read once, and get rid of. > > > > One metric of a good author is how his or her books sell. > > Another metric of a good author is how many of his or her > > readers add the book to their permanent library, as opposed > > to throw it away or resell it. Up until now, the resale rate > > ofa book has not really been a factor in the success of an > > author, because used books have never been a serious > > threat to new book sales. That could be about to change, > > and I'm not sure it's a bad development. > > > > I mean, for every used book on Amazon, there's a person who > > paid full price for the book, and is now, days or weeks later, > > unloading it for a small fraction of the price -- a strong > indication > > of a dissatisfied customer. Maybe the author of that book ought > > to find another line of work anyhow. > > > > > > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:25:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA08716 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:25:35 -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 LAA08713 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:25:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20010109162829.9237.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:28:29 PST Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:28:29 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 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: > the point I'm making is that I believe a hybrid nature is much more > believable to non-technical people. "Non-technical" is another word for imprecise or vague. "Non-technical" is an excuse to be lazy and try to make decisions without fully understanding the subject matter. In this case, the technical understanding is of linguistics: Software, source code, instructions, programs or whatever you want to call them are are basically sequences of commands: "name an integer n; let n be 2; add 3 to n; write n to the screen; do this; do that". Commands are verbs. Verbs are speech. Verbs are not machines. Verbs are not conduct. Verbs are not actions, but communication about action. It's technically that simple. If software is conduct, then so is telling your mother what to give you for your birthday, and so is speaking in the 2nd person present tense. If I said we should treat "Mom, buy me a book" as a machine would you think of it was absurd? How about "Mom, count to ten"? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:29:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA08877 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:29:30 -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 LAA08874 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:29:24 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:32:12 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:32:10 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 08:32:12 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 Yes. There is nothing to be gained by creating new "properties" that code possesses beyond the obvious ones. Code is information. Information is protected. So is code. Going back to an earlier time and test for speech, I don't see a "clear and present danger" here. The convenience of those with commercial interests does not constitute a "DANGER" "Peter D. Junger" cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Sent by: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Conduct? arvard.edu 01/09/01 06:54 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss "sparky" writes: : No one on the side of the defense is arguing that code is NOT : conduct (to use the parlance of this thread). In that sense, they are : arguing your position by default, because they argue that code is : speech. Your previous post, however, made it sound like we should : positively claim that code is not truly categorizable as one or the : other, and like this should hold some sort of weight in court of law. : If all your really saying is that code can be both, and not that we : need to argue that either categorization requires the other for a full : legal understanding of code - this list is all *over* that (as are, more : importantly, the defense lawyers). : I quite agree with your major point, but wish to point out that I at least take the position quite strongly that code is not conduct. Code is just a writing, a text. On the other hand speech is a type of conduct. As is the publication and other communication of code. And the writing of code for that matter. So the question is not whether something is speech or conduct, but whether particular conduct is speech (and whether, if it is, it is ``pure speech''). On the other hand---that gets us up to three hands---I don't think we need to confuse ourselves by talking about speech at all when we deal with the publication of code. The publication of information is protected by the freedom of the press. Looked at that way, any discussion of ``expression'' or ``functionality'' becomes irrelevant. If the freedom of the press protects the publisher of logarithms, as it surely does, then it protects the publisher of code. And in that context the courts have never suggested that bans on the publication of information need be subjected only to intermediate scrutiny. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:35:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09059 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:35:46 -0500 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA09056 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:35:43 -0500 Message-ID: <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:38:37 PST Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:38:37 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 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: > the plaintiffs claim that code is conduct because it does something. we > do not deny that this is so, I do. A person or a physical device such as a computer might DO something, but the code doesn't and can't do anything other than describe. After receiving verbal commands, the listening person or device might respond with some action. Any action that results is "done" by the person who controls the listener, not by the person who speaks the commands. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:35:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09048 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:35:02 -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 LAA09045 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:35:01 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500619.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.25]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43ACB27AB9 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:35:40 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2F36F175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:35:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:35:26 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109173526.A16993@lemuria.org> References: <3A5A1AFC.18597.29897A8@localhost>; <20010109102544.F15859@lemuria.org> <3A5ACC9C.4657.1DFEEE@localhost> <20010109155025.C19446@lemuria.org> <20010109083706.C1596@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010109083706.C1596@localhost>; from fenimore@roadrunner.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:37:06AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:37:06AM -0700, Paul Fenimore wrote: > > I *am* saying that code is not speech, but it's not conduct either - > > it's both. think photon/wave/particle. > > I believe there is a fallacy here --- namely a showing that something > has property "A" fails to demonstrate the absense of property "B". In > particular I'm looking at where you've written "code is not speech" and > then on the next line "it's both". We have property "A" and property "B". > I don't think one should say that "A and B true" is also "not A". ok, allow me to clarify: when I say "code is not speech", I mean it in the same sense as "a photon is not a wave". code surely has properties of speech, much like a photon has wave properties. however, neither *is* that which it exhibits properties of. > As I understand Peter Junger's position, a showing that something is > "functional" fails to demonstrate that it is "not-speech" (vibrating > vocal cords, pushing keys on a keyboard, scratching paper with an > ink-laden ball or wire, etc. are all still speech.) I agree on that. my point is a rhetorical one: if you insist on saying "code is speech", the opponent will always confront you with the "but it is also conduct" argument and you have to again and again and again tackle the issue. in other words: you're being tied up while the other side moves forward. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:37:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09142 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:37:04 -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 LAA09139 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:37:02 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500619.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.25]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36ACE27AB9 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:37:42 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 29116175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:37:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:37:31 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109173730.B16993@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:53:58AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:53:58AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Also , if it has the properties of speech and of conduct it cannot be > neither. I'm saying it is BOTH. in my world that means it's not (exclusively) either one. in essence, I'd like to move the debate away from "is code speech?" to "it doesn't matter. let's agree that it CONTAINS speech, and that this part is worthy of the highest protection, and because it can't exist alone, the whole has to receive said protection." -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:40:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09417 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:40:57 -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 LAA09413 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:40:55 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500619.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.25]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2957927AB9 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:41:35 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 194E6175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:41:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:41:24 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109174123.C16993@lemuria.org> References: <20010109162829.9237.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: <20010109162829.9237.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:28:29AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:28:29AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > If I said we should treat "Mom, buy me a book" as a machine would you think of > it was absurd? How about "Mom, count to ten"? what if "mom" is the name of your voice-recognizing computer? I've not suddenly become a majority shareholder in MPAA. I've always believed that code is worthy of the same protection that any textbook, research study, HOWTO or political rant receives. however, "code is speech" is putting the issue too simple, ignores some of the most interesting aspects of code and open the whole position up to attacks. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:41:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09436 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:41:50 -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 LAA09433 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:41:48 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:44:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:44:30 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 08:44:32 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 If you want to bring in quantum mechanics, then forget your analogy with photon/wave/particle. In any experiment the photon does not behave as BOTH wave and particle it behaves as wave OR particle. That it behaves differently depending upon the set up of the experiment (one slit = particle, two slits = wave). Code is still speech even though it may be used for other things. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/09/01 06:54 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:32:28AM -0600, sparky wrote: > But this really isn't an argument toward the hybrid nature of code. > Your scenario is an appeal to a judge to see that code qualifies as > speech, which is all that is necessary and sufficient for the law to > do to start down the path to "1201 is unconstitutional". yes, we all know that. :) > No one on the side of the defense is arguing that code is NOT > conduct (to use the parlance of this thread). In that sense, they are > arguing your position by default, because they argue that code is > speech. Your previous post, however, made it sound like we should > positively claim that code is not truly categorizable as one or the > other, and like this should hold some sort of weight in court of law. > If all your really saying is that code can be both, and not that we > need to argue that either categorization requires the other for a full > legal understanding of code - this list is all *over* that (as are, more > importantly, the defense lawyers). I *am* saying that code is not speech, but it's not conduct either - it's both. think photon/wave/particle. I'm not sure what exactly to argue in a court. common sense and intelligence seemingly have to be dropped at the door, alongside explosives and guns. and just to be completely honest, I think the whole movie mafia should be taken out and shot. seriously. but all that's not of primary importance. for the court case, it may (as said above: I'm not sure about any of this) be positive to provide the court with a more balanced, less black/white argument. the plaintiffs are already arguing extremely binary, we shouldn't follow them suit. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:45:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09650 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:45:46 -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 LAA09647 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:45:44 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:48:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:48:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 08:48:30 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 "non technical" also tends to obscure the salient points by bringing in technical concepts that are irrelevant. Bryan Taylor To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or arvard.edu Conduct? 01/09/01 08:30 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss --- Tom wrote: > the point I'm making is that I believe a hybrid nature is much more > believable to non-technical people. "Non-technical" is another word for imprecise or vague. "Non-technical" is an excuse to be lazy and try to make decisions without fully understanding the subject matter. In this case, the technical understanding is of linguistics: Software, source code, instructions, programs or whatever you want to call them are are basically sequences of commands: "name an integer n; let n be 2; add 3 to n; write n to the screen; do this; do that". Commands are verbs. Verbs are speech. Verbs are not machines. Verbs are not conduct. Verbs are not actions, but communication about action. It's technically that simple. If software is conduct, then so is telling your mother what to give you for your birthday, and so is speaking in the 2nd person present tense. If I said we should treat "Mom, buy me a book" as a machine would you think of it was absurd? How about "Mom, count to ten"? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:45:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09637 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:45:26 -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 LAA09634 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:45:22 -0500 Message-ID: <20010109164817.9553.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:48:17 PST Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:48:17 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 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 --- sparky wrote: > But this really isn't an argument toward the hybrid nature of code. > Your scenario is an appeal to a judge to see that code qualifies as > speech, which is all that is necessary and sufficient for the law to > do to start down the path to "1201 is unconstitutional". This is wrong. O'Brien stands for the proposition that mixed speech and conduct can be regulated by regulating the conduct, if some conditions are met. > No one on the side of the defense is arguing that code is NOT > conduct (to use the parlance of this thread). This is absolutely wrong. The *strongest* argument of the defense is the one that convinced the 9th Circuit not to apply the O'Brien test: that instructions are not conduct. We want the 2nd Circuit to adopt the Bernstein position. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 11:56:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09902 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:56:54 -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 LAA09897 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:56:48 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500619.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.25]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F02A27AB9 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:57:27 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2322B175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:57:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:57:16 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109175715.D16993@lemuria.org> References: <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.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: <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:38:37AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:38:37AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > the plaintiffs claim that code is conduct because it does something. we > > do not deny that this is so, > > I do. A person or a physical device such as a computer might DO something, but > the code doesn't and can't do anything other than describe. > > After receiving verbal commands, the listening person or device might respond > with some action. Any action that results is "done" by the person who controls > the listener, not by the person who speaks the commands. good point. but computers were designed to FOLLOW commands, not decide whether or not to do so. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 12:22:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10230 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:22:05 -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 MAA10227 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:22:02 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03088 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:20:09 -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 smtpdAAAr6aySf; Tue Jan 9 10:19:48 2001 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 KAA08215 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:24:25 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:24:25 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <20010109175715.D16993@lemuria.org> In-Reply-To: <20010109175715.D16993@lemuria.org> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01010910242500.19164@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 Tuesday 09 January 2001 09:57, Tom wrote: # On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:38:37AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: # > > the plaintiffs claim that code is conduct because it does something. we # > > do not deny that this is so, # > # > I do. A person or a physical device such as a computer might DO something, but # > the code doesn't and can't do anything other than describe. # > # > After receiving verbal commands, the listening person or device might respond # > with some action. Any action that results is "done" by the person who controls # > the listener, not by the person who speaks the commands. # # good point. but computers were designed to FOLLOW commands, not decide # whether or not to do so. If that mattered, we could do away with all freedom of speech by postulating a machine which would respond to random voice patterns with random actions, including mass death. The fact remains that the statement, "write the value 0xf00 to the I/O location 0xba" is just information, regardless of the consequences of doing so, and any non-speech aspects apply to the _application_ of that information, not its dissemination. -- | 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 Jan 9 12:23:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10252 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:23:08 -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 MAA10245 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:23:06 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA46505 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:26:00 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:25:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5AF547.4917.BCDC1D@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010109083706.C1596@localhost> References: <20010109155025.C19446@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:50:25PM +0100 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 9 Jan 2001, at 8:37, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:50:25PM +0100, Tom wrote: > > > > I *am* saying that code is not speech, but it's not conduct either - > > it's both. think photon/wave/particle. > > I believe there is a fallacy here --- namely a showing that something > has property "A" fails to demonstrate the absense of property "B". In > particular I'm looking at where you've written "code is not speech" > and then on the next line "it's both". We have property "A" and > property "B". I don't think one should say that "A and B true" is also > "not A". Right. Say A and B both are true, then A is true, and in this case A is all the court needs to know and cares about knowing. sparky > > As I understand Peter Junger's position, a showing that something is > "functional" fails to demonstrate that it is "not-speech" (vibrating > vocal cords, pushing keys on a keyboard, scratching paper with an > ink-laden ball or wire, etc. are all still speech.) > > [ ... ] > > > but all that's not of primary importance. for the court case, it may > > (as said above: I'm not sure about any of this) be positive to > > provide the court with a more balanced, less black/white argument. > > the plaintiffs are already arguing extremely binary, we shouldn't > > follow them suit. > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 12:23:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10246 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:23:07 -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 MAA10241 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:23:04 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA46492 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:25:59 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:25:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5AF547.16848.BCDC3B@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010109173730.B16993@lemuria.org> References: ; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:53:58AM -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 9 Jan 2001, at 17:37, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:53:58AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > wrote: > Also , if it has the properties of speech and of conduct it > cannot be > neither. > > I'm saying it is BOTH. in my world that means it's not (exclusively) > either one. The plaintiffs arguments require that code be exclusively non- speech. The defense arguments only require that code have qualities of speech, not that it has no qualities which are not speech-like. In Paul's terms, code can be A (speech) or B (non- speech). The plaintiffs say B and only B. We say Sure B, but also A. It absolutely does not matter if code is in fact BOTH A and B, not to the court. As long as A is true, no other qualities matter. It is the pre-emptive category. This is why arguing that code is both is unproductive. We don't care if code is B, not as long as it's A. > > in essence, I'd like to move the debate away from "is code speech?" to > "it doesn't matter. let's agree that it CONTAINS speech, and that this > part is worthy of the highest protection, and because it can't exist > alone, the whole has to receive said protection." Saying that code contains speech is just the same to the court as saying it is speech. sparky > > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 12:30:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10546 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:30:43 -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 MAA10543 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:30:41 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA50967 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:33:34 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:33:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5AF708.5735.C3B5E2@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010109164817.9553.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> 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 9 Jan 2001, at 8:48, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- sparky wrote: > > > But this really isn't an argument toward the hybrid nature of code. > > Your scenario is an appeal to a judge to see that code qualifies as > > speech, which is all that is necessary and sufficient for the law to > > do to start down the path to "1201 is unconstitutional". > > This is wrong. O'Brien stands for the proposition that mixed speech > and conduct can be regulated by regulating the conduct, if some > conditions are met. > > > No one on the side of the defense is arguing that code is NOT > > conduct (to use the parlance of this thread). > > This is absolutely wrong. The *strongest* argument of the defense is > the one that convinced the 9th Circuit not to apply the O'Brien test: > that instructions are not conduct. We want the 2nd Circuit to adopt > the Bernstein position. Oops. well, there goes what I was saying then. sp > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 12:47:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10869 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:47:01 -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 MAA10866 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:47:00 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500619.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.25]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275CE27AB9 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:47:39 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DFEB3175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:47:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:47:27 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109184726.A17048@lemuria.org> References: <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <20010109175715.D16993@lemuria.org> <01010910242500.19164@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: <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com>; from dcs@lumbercartel.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:24:25AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:24:25AM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote: > # good point. but computers were designed to FOLLOW commands, not decide > # whether or not to do so. > > If that mattered, we could do away with all freedom of speech by postulating > a machine which would respond to random voice patterns with random actions, > including mass death. if we had a machine that starts WW3 whenever someone says "pig" then we might indeed have to do away with either the machine or free speech, just to save the species. > The fact remains that the statement, > "write the value 0xf00 to the I/O location 0xba" > is just information, regardless of the consequences of doing so, > and any non-speech aspects apply to the _application_ of that > information, not its dissemination. two points. one is that with code your information will have a direct effect (if the machine is working properly) and moreover, you can reasonable expect that it does. for example, if you write "launch(ICBM);" then an action is not only following, you fully well knew that it would. the "immanent danger" test works. two, even given the whole "1st amendment pride" we are all aware that it's not obeyed in all cases. there's a lot of information/speech that will get you in jail, even if it's in the "instructions" category. try posting detailed instructions on how to create kid porn. I'd be surprised if we see you again on this list for the next 10 or so years. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 12:49:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA11151 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:49:10 -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 MAA11147 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:49:08 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500619.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.25]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA5827AB9 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:49:47 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2B79B175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:49:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:49:36 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109184935.B17048@lemuria.org> References: ; <20010109173730.B16993@lemuria.org> <3A5AF547.16848.BCDC3B@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A5AF547.16848.BCDC3B@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:25:59AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:25:59AM -0600, sparky wrote: > > I'm saying it is BOTH. in my world that means it's not (exclusively) > > either one. > > The plaintiffs arguments require that code be exclusively non- > speech. The defense arguments only require that code have > qualities of speech, not that it has no qualities which are not > speech-like. right. > In Paul's terms, code can be A (speech) or B (non- > speech). The plaintiffs say B and only B. We say Sure B, but also > A. It absolutely does not matter if code is in fact BOTH A and B, > not to the court. but it may make the argument stronger to take the issue serious instead of saying "it doesn't matter, but it has A". > > in essence, I'd like to move the debate away from "is code speech?" to > > "it doesn't matter. let's agree that it CONTAINS speech, and that this > > part is worthy of the highest protection, and because it can't exist > > alone, the whole has to receive said protection." > > Saying that code contains speech is just the same to the court as > saying it is speech. is it? weird, kaplan seems to agree that it contains speech, but not that it is. at least not enough to warrant 1st am. protection. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 13:01:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA11343 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:01:10 -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 NAA11337 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:01:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 1182 invoked by uid 69022); 9 Jan 2001 18:03:31 -0000 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:03:09 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109180309.A1175@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jim Bauer wrote: > > BTW, why is machine generated executable code copyrighted? Shouldn't > only the human generated source be subject to copyright? That's a seperate question, but I happen to agree with it. I think that copyright should only apply to the source code, and that some other regime should be used for the executable. Something that takes account of the fact that s/w (executables) become obsolete very quickly. Such that executables have a limited protected status: say 15 - 20 years. DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 13:14:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA11597 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:14:28 -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 NAA11594 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:14:25 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:17:12 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:17:11 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 10:17:12 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 Agreed. On a practical side, different versions of a compiler will produce different executable. What does a copyright mean on a pattern of 1s and 0s? In some ways, to copyright source code one must almost produce a sequence of instructions, ala a patent disclosure, giving the precedure for creating the executable. Derek Fawcus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or arvard.edu Conduct? 01/09/01 10:06 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Jim Bauer wrote: > > BTW, why is machine generated executable code copyrighted? Shouldn't > only the human generated source be subject to copyright? That's a seperate question, but I happen to agree with it. I think that copyright should only apply to the source code, and that some other regime should be used for the executable. Something that takes account of the fact that s/w (executables) become obsolete very quickly. Such that executables have a limited protected status: say 15 - 20 years. DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 13:30:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA11895 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:30:41 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA11886 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:30:31 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23164 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:32:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:32:56 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting In-Reply-To: <20010109180309.A1175@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.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 Well, I'm watching the webcast of MacWorld Expo and Apple has announced that they're going to be shipping computers with CDRW/DVDR writers that can burn discs playable on consumer players. While the cost will likely be fairly high, and the bundled authoring software they showed was kind of simplistic, it does open the door for home DVD piracy (they're selling blank discs for $10 ea) which the MPAA/DVDCCA has been so afraid of. More information will likely show up shortly on various news sites (MacNN, Slashdot, etc.) as well as at Apple. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 13:47:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA12142 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:47:20 -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 NAA12139 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:47:18 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA94243 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:50:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:50:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5B0906.5438.109FD75@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010109184726.A17048@lemuria.org> References: <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com>; from dcs@lumbercartel.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:24:25AM -0700 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 9 Jan 2001, at 18:47, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:24:25AM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote: > > > The fact remains that the statement, > > "write the value 0xf00 to the I/O location 0xba" > > is just information, regardless of the consequences of doing so, and > > any non-speech aspects apply to the _application_ of that > > information, not its dissemination. > > two points. one is that with code your information will have a direct > effect (if the machine is working properly) and moreover, you can > reasonable expect that it does. I don't think this is correct. The code itself does nothing. Something must interpret the code. It's just like a weblink: plaintiffs will argue that the weblink is a device, something that does an action or creates an effect. In fact the weblink is just a line of text which some other device reads. This other device then performs the action. There is no direct link between code and executed actions, or at least you'll have to make a more concentrated argument to convince there is. for example, if you write > "launch(ICBM);" then an action is not only following, you fully well > knew that it would. The action doesn't necessarily follow from the *writing* of the command. Writing just shows potential. Potential can be realized if you have *something else* which can interpret the writing and perform an action. sparky the "immanent danger" test works. two, even given > the whole "1st amendment pride" we are all aware that it's not obeyed > in all cases. there's a lot of information/speech that will get you in > jail, even if it's in the "instructions" category. try posting > detailed instructions on how to create kid porn. I'd be surprised if > we see you again on this list for the next 10 or so years. > > > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 14:13:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA12538 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:13:06 -0500 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 OAA12535 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:13:04 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA16193 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:14:39 -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 smtpdAAAeyaGfA; Tue Jan 9 12:10:09 2001 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 MAA08412 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:11:09 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:11:08 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <20010109184726.A17048@lemuria.org> In-Reply-To: <20010109184726.A17048@lemuria.org> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01010912110801.19164@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 Tuesday 09 January 2001 10:47, Tom wrote: # On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:24:25AM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote: # > The fact remains that the statement, # > "write the value 0xf00 to the I/O location 0xba" # > is just information, regardless of the consequences of doing so, # > and any non-speech aspects apply to the _application_ of that # > information, not its dissemination. # # two points. one is that with code your information will have a direct # effect (if the machine is working properly) and moreover, you can # reasonable expect that it does. for example, if you write # "launch(ICBM);" then an action is not only following, you fully well # knew that it would. the "immanent danger" test works. Tom, you just wrote, "launch(ICBM);" If your theory were applied, that e-mail would have been illegal. -- | 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 Jan 9 14:17:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA12686 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:17:10 -0500 Received: from dial149.roadrunner.com (sf-du149.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.149]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA12681 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:17:06 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial149.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00754 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:08:10 -0700 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:08:09 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109120809.A724@localhost> References: ; <20010109173730.B16993@lemuria.org> <3A5AF547.16848.BCDC3B@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A5AF547.16848.BCDC3B@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:25:59AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:25:59AM -0600, sparky wrote: > On 9 Jan 2001, at 17:37, Tom wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:53:58AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org > > wrote: > Also , if it has the properties of speech and of conduct it > > cannot be > neither. > > > > I'm saying it is BOTH. in my world that means it's not (exclusively) > > either one. > > The plaintiffs arguments require that code be exclusively non- > speech. The defense arguments only require that code have > qualities of speech, not that it has no qualities which are not > speech-like. In Paul's terms, code can be A (speech) or B (non- Substitute: "A true" = "speech" "A false" = "non-speech" "B true" = "conduct" "B false" = "non-conduct" and you get what I meant. > speech). The plaintiffs say B and only B. We say Sure B, but also > A. It absolutely does not matter if code is in fact BOTH A and B, > not to the court. As long as A is true, no other qualities matter. It is > the pre-emptive category. This is why arguing that code is both is > unproductive. We don't care if code is B, not as long as it's A. [ ... ] Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 14:20:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA12765 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:20:08 -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 OAA12758 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:20:01 -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 NAA06424 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:22:55 -0600 Received: from zero.monsters.org by zero.monsters.org (8.11.0) id f09JIDQ23153; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:18:14 -0600 Message-Id: <200101091918.f09JIDQ23153@zero.monsters.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:18:13 -0600 From: Stephen L Johnson Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Forgive me for stepping into of this debate. I think eveyone is missing a vary fundamental point in this debate. I'm not a lawyer, nor have I played one on television. I'm just a knowledgeable layman. But this is something that I intimately familiar with since I've been programming since 1977.. (And they say to only write about something you know... :). Source code, IMHO, is and should be considered only speech. There are certainly no conduct portions. Whether the source code is in the form of thoughts in my head, pen/pencil on paper, an ASCII file on a computer, a compiled object code file or a linked executable ready to be executed, it is still just information that can convery thought and ideas, i.e. speech. Where is there any conduct component that derives solely from the actual nature of the software? There are none. In the O'Brien case, he burned his draft card. In the case of flag burning, people set the fires. What do these have in common? A _person_ took some form of _action_. It is the person's _conduct_ which is considered speech. (Maybe a bit simplified.) The act of writing a program to exploit the latest buffer over-run bug in ABC's product XYZ. The program in any form from source code to executable is nothing but information that can convey thoughts and ideas. The very essence of speech. Now a malicious person steals your the source code, and he breaks into DEF's company computers by running the program. In doing so, he causes millions of dollars in damages to the company's databases and development systems. Now has the exploit program by it's very nature the cause of DEF d'samage? No, it was a _person_ _using_ the program to perform the act. And as on a somewhat related issue, what is executable code in relation it's source code? It is a 100% derivative work. The source code is changed/transformed through a compilation and linking process into the executable code. And there are plenty of statutes and case law on the books that handle derivative works. Stephen L Johnson From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 15:31:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA14596 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:31:17 -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 PAA14593 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:31:15 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd950067c.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.124]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6B427ABA for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:31:52 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AE5A8175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:31:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:31:40 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109213140.A17136@lemuria.org> References: <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com>; <20010109184726.A17048@lemuria.org> <3A5B0906.5438.109FD75@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A5B0906.5438.109FD75@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:50:14PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:50:14PM -0600, sparky wrote: > > two points. one is that with code your information will have a direct > > effect (if the machine is working properly) and moreover, you can > > reasonable expect that it does. > > I don't think this is correct. The code itself does nothing. > Something must interpret the code. that is a technical point which - while correct - will hardly convince a judge or anyone else. "I have this code of word and it makes a wordprocessor. and this code of netscape makes me browse for porn. and this code of decss make pirate copies". I don't think the argument that you need a computer, microcode and and operating system will convince a judge any more than the argument your nerve gas needs oxygen to work would get you off the hook. > It's just like a weblink: plaintiffs > will argue that the weblink is a device, something that does an > action or creates an effect. In fact the weblink is just a line of text > which some other device reads. This other device then performs the > action. There is no direct link between code and executed actions, > or at least you'll have to make a more concentrated argument to > convince there is. I'm afraid the problem is the other way around: it's we who must convince the judge that it is not so. > The action doesn't necessarily follow from the *writing* of the > command. Writing just shows potential. Potential can be realized if > you have *something else* which can interpret the writing and > perform an action. again, I don't think the court cares. it's like shooting the president - you're not exactly killing him, just taking a shot that has the potential to inflict serious harm upon contact with his body. however, if you pull the trigger or write "launch(ICBM);", your intentions are quite clear and whether or not the action follows directly or after several intermediate steps is a technicality without the slightest impact on the matter. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 15:33:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA14638 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:33:28 -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 PAA14634 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:33:26 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd950067c.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.124]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1A427ABA for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:34:05 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DCE7F175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:33:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:33:54 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109213354.B17136@lemuria.org> References: <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <20010109184726.A17048@lemuria.org> <01010912110801.19164@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: <01010912110801.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com>; from dcs@lumbercartel.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:11:08PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:11:08PM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote: > # two points. one is that with code your information will have a direct > # effect (if the machine is working properly) and moreover, you can > # reasonable expect that it does. for example, if you write > # "launch(ICBM);" then an action is not only following, you fully well > # knew that it would. the "immanent danger" test works. > > Tom, you just wrote, "launch(ICBM);" > > If your theory were applied, that e-mail would have been illegal. I stand corrected: context does apply. shooting a bullet is not the same as shooting a bullet at the president. so guns are legal, but shooting someone is not. and by the same simple principle decss is legal, but pirating movies is not. eh, wait. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 15:35:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA14764 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:35:41 -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 PAA14759 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:35:38 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd950067c.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.124]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE0F27ABA for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:36:17 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AFC35175182; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:36:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:36:06 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010109213606.C17136@lemuria.org> References: <200101091918.f09JIDQ23153@zero.monsters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200101091918.f09JIDQ23153@zero.monsters.org>; from sjohnson@monsters.org on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:18:13PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:18:13PM -0600, Stephen L Johnson wrote: > The source code is changed/transformed through a compilation and linking > process into the executable code. And there are plenty of statutes and case > law on the books that handle derivative works. that all seems pretty straightforward to anyone who's ever written a program, but unfortunately the court has choosen to believe a couple of lawyers instead of the knowledgable persons. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 16:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA15217 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:05:00 -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 QAA15205 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:04:53 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:07:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:07:32 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 01:07:35 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 Your last line pretty much sums it up. The issue is P I R A CY. That's illegal. No additional laws are needed. The DMCA makes illegal the P O T E N T I A L for P O S S I B L E piracy. I keep thinking about Holmes' clear and present danger test. The DeCSS and DMCA don't pass muster using that test. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/09/01 12:38 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:11:08PM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote: > # two points. one is that with code your information will have a direct > # effect (if the machine is working properly) and moreover, you can > # reasonable expect that it does. for example, if you write > # "launch(ICBM);" then an action is not only following, you fully well > # knew that it would. the "immanent danger" test works. > > Tom, you just wrote, "launch(ICBM);" > > If your theory were applied, that e-mail would have been illegal. I stand corrected: context does apply. shooting a bullet is not the same as shooting a bullet at the president. so guns are legal, but shooting someone is not. and by the same simple principle decss is legal, but pirating movies is not. eh, wait. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 16:08:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA15350 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:08:54 -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 QAA15346 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:08:52 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:10:20 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:10:18 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 01:10:20 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 Lawyers vs. Knowlegeable people....Amicus curiae? Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/09/01 12:40 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:18:13PM -0600, Stephen L Johnson wrote: > The source code is changed/transformed through a compilation and linking > process into the executable code. And there are plenty of statutes and case > law on the books that handle derivative works. that all seems pretty straightforward to anyone who's ever written a program, but unfortunately the court has choosen to believe a couple of lawyers instead of the knowledgable persons. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 17:54:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA16547 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:54:07 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA16544 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:54:05 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f09MuGX03721 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:56:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A5B973F.3124DE12@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:57:03 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] SCSI Configured Auto Magically 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 >From a Seagate SCSI-2/SCSI-3 manual: "Each SCAM compliant device has a unique identification string of up to 31 bytes assigned at manufacturing time. No two SCSI devices in the world have the same identification string numeric value. The SCAM protocol uses these device identification strings to isolate each device on the SCSI bus one at a time and assign SCSI ID numbers to the different devices on the bus." I dug this up while looking into the ATA disk issues. Come to think of it, a 'globally unique' identification number is in all NIC's, as well. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 18:15:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA16763 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:15:35 -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 SAA16760 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:15:34 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd950067c.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.124]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C3A27AB9 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:16:12 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6B5AE175182; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:16:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:16:02 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010110001601.B17485@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:10:18PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:10:18PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Lawyers vs. Knowlegeable people....Amicus curiae? more like "why the world is fucked up in 4 words". we currently have the same problem in germany about patent laws. longwinded discussions about legalese and interpretations of bla bla. lawyers discussing with politicians. it never dawned to any of them to ask someone who knows what he's talking about. same with DMCA or what have you. heinlein was quite right: lawyers do the worst damage in law making. so, the question is not what code is. for all we care, it could be anything. the question is how to convince the court that it is whatever we want it to be. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 18:44:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA17027 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:44:53 -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 SAA17024 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:44:51 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA46940 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:47:47 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:47:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5B4EC3.7417.18231E@localhost> In-reply-to: <200101091918.f09JIDQ23153@zero.monsters.org> 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 9 Jan 2001, at 13:18, Stephen L Johnson wrote: > > And as on a somewhat related issue, what is executable code in > relation it's source code? It is a 100% derivative work. Wow, now *that's* an interesting idea. sp > > The source code is changed/transformed through a compilation and > linking process into the executable code. And there are plenty of > statutes and case law on the books that handle derivative works. > > Stephen L Johnson > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 18:57:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA17201 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:57:51 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA17198 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:57:49 -0500 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 SAA26129 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:06:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010109093525.A8906@inka.de> References: <200101090011.TAA09848@samsara.law.cwru.edu> <20010109093525.A8906@inka.de> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:47:23 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another evil of player control: Forced subtitles 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 >I've recently heard from a friend in Denmark that the Scandinavian release >of "Bride of Chucky" has subtitles in 4 languages, but when played in a >sanctioned player, does not have the option of playing *without* any >subtitles. The box carries the floowing notice in tiny print: > >"tekster kan ikke fravalges" > >Translation (I don't speak Danish, so can't verify this): >"Subtitles cannot be turned off" > >Indicating that it was done deliberately and is not an authoring bug. > It could have been an authoring bug that was "fixed" by re-labeling the package. Arnold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 19:13:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA17403 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:13:51 -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 TAA17400 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:13:49 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:16:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:16:32 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 04:16:35 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 That's the problem....the courts cannot be let decide what "code" is based upon total ignorance or self serving commercial interests. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/09/01 03:20 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:10:18PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Lawyers vs. Knowlegeable people....Amicus curiae? more like "why the world is fucked up in 4 words". we currently have the same problem in germany about patent laws. longwinded discussions about legalese and interpretations of bla bla. lawyers discussing with politicians. it never dawned to any of them to ask someone who knows what he's talking about. same with DMCA or what have you. heinlein was quite right: lawyers do the worst damage in law making. so, the question is not what code is. for all we care, it could be anything. the question is how to convince the court that it is whatever we want it to be. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 19:17:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA17492 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:17:17 -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 TAA17485 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:17:13 -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; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:20:02 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:19:59 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/09/2001 04:20:03 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 Double WOW! What's more, it's a derivative work that includes work done by the compiler writer, the writer of the libraries etc. Of course, the arguement is that the compiler or library writer also is giving up certain rights (or retaining them as in GNU) when they distribute them. "sparky" Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/09/01 03:50 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On 9 Jan 2001, at 13:18, Stephen L Johnson wrote: > > And as on a somewhat related issue, what is executable code in > relation it's source code? It is a 100% derivative work. Wow, now *that's* an interesting idea. sp > > The source code is changed/transformed through a compilation and > linking process into the executable code. And there are plenty of > statutes and case law on the books that handle derivative works. > > Stephen L Johnson > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 19:27:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA17692 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:27:02 -0500 Received: from nanocrew.net ([195.159.132.110]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA17688 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:26:59 -0500 Received: (qmail 8276 invoked by uid 1000); 10 Jan 2001 00:26:07 -0000 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:26:07 +0100 From: Jon Lech Johansen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another evil of player control: Forced subtitles Message-ID: <20010110012607.A6375@nanocrew.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200101090011.TAA09848@samsara.law.cwru.edu> <20010109093525.A8906@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: ; from reinhold@world.std.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 05:47:23PM -0500 X-Website-You-Must-Visit: www.eff.org X-Sender: jon@nanocrew.net X-PGP-Key: http://nanocrew.net/jon.asc Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 05:47:23PM -0500, Arnold G. Reinhold (reinhold@world.std.com) wrote: > > > >Translation (I don't speak Danish, so can't verify this): > >"Subtitles cannot be turned off" > > > >Indicating that it was done deliberately and is not an authoring bug. > > > > It could have been an authoring bug that was "fixed" by re-labeling > the package. Several norwegian releases have this consumer friendly feature as well. It is not a bug. Yet another reason why we need an open source player and free(dom) hardware players. -- Jon Johansen nanocrew.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 20:12:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA18379 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:12:59 -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 UAA18376 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:12:57 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA76116 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:15:53 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:15:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5B6369.30367.68CBFD@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010109213140.A17136@lemuria.org> References: <3A5B0906.5438.109FD75@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:50:14PM -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 9 Jan 2001, at 21:31, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:50:14PM -0600, sparky wrote: > > > two points. one is that with code your information will have a > > > direct effect (if the machine is working properly) and moreover, > > > you can reasonable expect that it does. > > > > I don't think this is correct. The code itself does nothing. > > Something must interpret the code. > > that is a technical point which - while correct - will hardly convince > a judge or anyone else. You sat this is the truth, but then state that it will do us no good to argue the truth in court. Are you saying our case should be built on untruths? What good would that do us? don't you think it is a better idea to argue the truth as many different ways and from as many different angles as is necessary to get the judge to realize that it is the truth? "I have this code of word and it makes a > wordprocessor. and this code of netscape makes me browse for porn. and > this code of decss make pirate copies". I don't think the argument > that you need a computer, microcode and and operating system will > convince a judge any more than the argument your nerve gas needs > oxygen to work would get you off the hook. You are saying that we are arguing that the code is not conduct because you need a computer or other programs to execute it. I don't think this is what the defense is arguing. I think they are arguing that code is speech, because it expresses ideas. It is not a matter where spreading nerve gas is okay because there is no oxygen; it is a matter of spreading information about how to create nerve gas, which is okay because such information is speech. > > > > It's just like a weblink: plaintiffs > > will argue that the weblink is a device, something that does an > > action or creates an effect. In fact the weblink is just a line of > > text which some other device reads. This other device then performs > > the action. There is no direct link between code and executed > > actions, or at least you'll have to make a more concentrated > > argument to convince there is. > > I'm afraid the problem is the other way around: it's we who must > convince the judge that it is not so. > > > > The action doesn't necessarily follow from the *writing* of the > > command. Writing just shows potential. Potential can be realized if > > you have *something else* which can interpret the writing and > > perform an action. > > again, I don't think the court cares. it's like shooting the president > - you're not exactly killing him, just taking a shot that has the > potential to inflict serious harm upon contact with his body. I think there's a mistake in assuming that code is like taking a shot at someone. If we shoot at someone, maybe we hit them, maybe we don't. The shot has the potential to hit the target, but we don't really know where the bullet will end up. But code is not "potential" in that we don't know the outcome of the code should it be run. We know what will happen when the code runs (if it is written correctly). Code is "potential" in that it is not the action it describes. It is related to the action, but is not the action itself. When it comes to this sort of "potential", absolutely the court cares. Describing an action is not the same as intent to perform the action. Of coures this sort of misses an important aspect of DeCSS, which is that it does not even "describe" piracy of copyrighted works. Only because 1201 allows encryption to qualify as copy control does DeCSS "describe" copyright infringement. however, > if you pull the trigger or write "launch(ICBM);", your intentions are > quite clear and whether or not the action follows directly or after > several intermediate steps is a technicality without the slightest > impact on the matter. Again, writing a command is does not show intent. Pulling the trigger and writing a command are not commensurate here. If you compared pulling the trigger to pressing the button that executed the "launch(ICBM)" command, or designing a trigger or gun or ICBM to writing the command, that would make more sense. sparky > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 20:23:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA18704 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:23:04 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA18701 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:23:03 -0500 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 UAA08994 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:11:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:11:05 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting 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 >Well, I'm watching the webcast of MacWorld Expo and Apple has announced >that they're going to be shipping computers with CDRW/DVDR writers that >can burn discs playable on consumer players. > >While the cost will likely be fairly high, and the bundled authoring >software they showed was kind of simplistic, it does open the door for >home DVD piracy (they're selling blank discs for $10 ea) which the >MPAA/DVDCCA has been so afraid of. > >More information will likely show up shortly on various news sites (MacNN, >Slashdot, etc.) as well as at Apple. According to the Apple web site http://www.apple.com/idvd/ their new iDVD program"Handles up to one hour of video per DVD" That may be one way they intend to prevent piracy. I believe there are also some anti-piracy provisions in the latest Quicktime 5, which is required. Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 00:55:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA20836 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:55:14 -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 AAA20833 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:55:11 -0500 Message-ID: <20010110055809.15576.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:58:09 PST Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:58:09 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 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: > however, "code is speech" is putting the issue too simple, ignores some > of the most interesting aspects of code and open the whole position up > to attacks. "code is speech" is a mundane statement that even judge Kaplan agrees with. I would say that this is settled law by now, especially if you include the myriad of cases that consider software to be copyrightable as a 'literary work', which is certainly speech. (As someone suggested, saying code is not speech would probably imply that it isn't copyrightable, contradicting LOTS of cases) The real debate is over the statement "code is (also) non-speech conduct". If it is, then we have to make our case based on the four points of the O'Brien standard. If it isn't, then we win because O'Brien can't apply and strict scrutiny applies. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 04:23:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA21645 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:23:51 -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 EAA21642 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:23:44 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500f08.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.15.8]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B8527AB9 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:24:06 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EF8E8175182; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:23:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:23:55 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010110102355.A17830@lemuria.org> References: <3A5B0906.5438.109FD75@localhost>; <20010109213140.A17136@lemuria.org> <3A5B6369.30367.68CBFD@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A5B6369.30367.68CBFD@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:15:53PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:15:53PM -0600, sparky wrote: > > that is a technical point which - while correct - will hardly convince > > a judge or anyone else. > > You sat this is the truth, but then state that it will do us no good to > argue the truth in court. correct. > Are you saying our case should be built on untruths? no, I'm saying that truth doesn't matter. > What good would that do us? don't you think it is a better > idea to argue the truth as many different ways and from as many > different angles as is necessary to get the judge to realize that it is > the truth? definitely not. all you'll do is confuse him and make him choose the plaintiff's side which is argued by fellow lawyers and as thus is almost guaranteed to be blatant lies but of a kind he understands. > You are saying that we are arguing that the code is not conduct > because you need a computer or other programs to execute it. I > don't think this is what the defense is arguing. I think they are > arguing that code is speech, because it expresses ideas. It is not > a matter where spreading nerve gas is okay because there is no > oxygen; it is a matter of spreading information about how to create > nerve gas, which is okay because such information is speech. but code is a different kind of instruction than a sheet of paper. all dialectic bla bla aside, I can't think of any other profession that earns even the same dimension of money by creating specific sets of "instructions". nobody would pay a freelance programmer for a sheet of paper with a prosa description of how to solve their problem. > > again, I don't think the court cares. it's like shooting the president > > - you're not exactly killing him, just taking a shot that has the > > potential to inflict serious harm upon contact with his body. > > I think there's a mistake in assuming that code is like taking a shot > at someone. If we shoot at someone, maybe we hit them, maybe > we don't. The shot has the potential to hit the target, but we don't > really know where the bullet will end up. But code is not "potential" > in that we don't know the outcome of the code should it be run. We > know what will happen when the code runs (if it is written > correctly). Code is "potential" in that it is not the action it > describes. It is related to the action, but is not the action itself. that's what I was saying in another thread: when you write the code you EXPECT it to accomplish an action. code is very rarely written as a description/instruction. it is always always written to do something and all the arguing about whether or not it is the action or just related to it will be technical ranting to a judge. > When it comes to this sort of "potential", absolutely the court > cares. Describing an action is not the same as intent to perform > the action. writing code is not like writing a bomb-building instruction. it's more like building a bomb - when you're finished, a few button presses are all that's between you and the action. > Again, writing a command is does not show intent. uh? when I write "rm *" without intent I must be pretty drunk. > Pulling the > trigger and writing a command are not commensurate here. If you > compared pulling the trigger to pressing the button that executed > the "launch(ICBM)" command, or designing a trigger or gun or > ICBM to writing the command, that would make more sense. but does it make any difference - in a legal sense - whether I start WW3 by pressing a button or with a commandline? definitely not. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 05:22:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA22005 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:22:46 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA22002 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:22:40 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06491; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:25:36 GMT Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:25:36 GMT Subject: [dvd-discuss] More recordable DVD info To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You've heard about Apple's iDVD, now take a look at this: http://www.pioneer.co.jp/press/release75.html Comment #4 talks about "protecting the rights of copyright holders" and other such things, but no detailed indication about how that's expected to be done. I deduce from the comments that the recorder will respect Macrovision if it detects it, and knows about CGMS, the "Copy Generation Management System" (which is what? - a signal in the vertical blanking interval?). However, since the recorder only seems to have analog video inputs and a DV/FireWire port, and since commercial DVD players only have analog video outputs, the only way you could pirate a commercial movie would be to go via analog. So the movie studio's fears of "perfect digital copies" are not going to be realised with this equipment. -- 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 Wed Jan 10 05:27:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA22464 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:27:45 -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 FAA22461 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:27:41 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14GIWd-0003NJ-00; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:30:39 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14GIWf-0004YA-00; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:30:41 +0100 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:30:41 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] More recordable DVD info Message-ID: <20010110113040.B12704@inka.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from steve@i2it.co.uk on Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:25:36AM +0000 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > about CGMS, the "Copy Generation Management > System" (which is what? - a signal in the vertical blanking interval?). I suspect it's the "original or copy" bit in VOB files. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 05:37:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA22609 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:37:00 -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 FAA22604 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:36:45 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14GIfJ-0003og-00; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:39:37 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14GIfM-0004bW-00; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:39:40 +0100 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:39:40 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] More recordable DVD info Message-ID: <20010110113940.C12704@inka.de> References: <20010110113040.B12704@inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010110113040.B12704@inka.de>; from mail@risctaker.inka.de on Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:30:41AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:30:41AM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > about CGMS, the "Copy Generation Management > > System" (which is what? - a signal in the vertical blanking interval?). > > I suspect it's the "original or copy" bit in VOB files. Oops that'll teach me to reply before folowing the link. I hadn't realised it was a standalone "VCR" type machine you were talking about. I suppose it's possible that the bits in question are transmitted in the blanking interval bz compliant players. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 09:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24148 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:44:35 -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 JAA24145 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:44:33 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-34-126.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.34.126]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA71891 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:47:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:47:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <3A5C21A3.30633.16CCFC@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010110055809.15576.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> 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 Brian, what are the four points of the O'Brien standard? 0100,0100,0100On 9 Jan 2001, at 21:58, Bryan Taylor wrote: 7F00,0000,0000> > --- Tom < wrote: > > > however, "code is speech" is putting the issue too simple, ignores > > some of the most interesting aspects of code and open the whole > > position up to attacks. > > "code is speech" is a mundane statement that even judge Kaplan agrees > with. I would say that this is settled law by now, especially if you > include the myriad of cases that consider software to be copyrightable > as a 'literary work', which is certainly speech. (As someone > suggested, saying code is not speech would probably imply that it > isn't copyrightable, contradicting LOTS of cases) > > The real debate is over the statement "code is (also) non-speech > conduct". > > If it is, then we have to make our case based on the four points of > the O'Brien standard. If it isn't, then we win because O'Brien can't > apply and strict scrutiny applies. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 10:31:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24555 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:31:54 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24552 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:31:51 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13789; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:34:11 -0500 Message-Id: <200101101534.KAA13789@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:58:09 PST." <20010110055809.15576.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:33:41 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: : : --- Tom wrote: : : > however, "code is speech" is putting the issue too simple, ignores some : > of the most interesting aspects of code and open the whole position up : > to attacks. : : "code is speech" is a mundane statement that even judge Kaplan agrees with. I : would say that this is settled law by now, especially if you include the myri : ad : of cases that consider software to be copyrightable as a 'literary work', whi : ch : is certainly speech. (As someone suggested, saying code is not speech would : probably imply that it isn't copyrightable, contradicting LOTS of cases) : : The real debate is over the statement "code is (also) non-speech conduct". : : If it is, then we have to make our case based on the four points of the O'Bri : en : standard. If it isn't, then we win because O'Brien can't apply and strict : scrutiny applies. O'Brien only applies--or, rather, intermediate scrutiny only applies, when there is conduct, besides speaking, that does not violate the First Amendment. In the 2600 case the only conduct is the publication of information and so it is as protected as anything can be. (Intermediate scrutiny may also apply in cases where the speech itself can be forbidden because of the time, place, and manner of the speech---i.e., using a bullhorn in the judge's neighborhood at 3 a.m. However, Reno v. ACLU makes clear that time, place, and manner regulations do not apply to publication on the Internet and Web. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 10:34:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24623 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:34:21 -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 KAA24620 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:34:19 -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; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:37:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another evil of player control: Forced subtitles To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:37:08 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/10/2001 07:37:11 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 Don't you just love the way the MPAA is enhancing everybody's life. Obviously if you are Danish Norwegian or any "foreign" nationality you'd never ever be able to understand a movie in English so obviously you'd never ever want to turn off the subtitles....Those clowns have a real C O N T R O L problem Jon Lech Johansen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another evil of arvard.edu player control: Forced subtitles 01/09/01 04:31 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 05:47:23PM -0500, Arnold G. Reinhold (reinhold@world.std.com) wrote: > > > >Translation (I don't speak Danish, so can't verify this): > >"Subtitles cannot be turned off" > > > >Indicating that it was done deliberately and is not an authoring bug. > > > > It could have been an authoring bug that was "fixed" by re-labeling > the package. Several norwegian releases have this consumer friendly feature as well. It is not a bug. Yet another reason why we need an open source player and free(dom) hardware players. -- Jon Johansen nanocrew.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 10:37:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24737 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:37:25 -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 KAA24733 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:37:23 -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; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:40:15 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:40:11 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/10/2001 07:40:15 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 Rather than use a shotgun approach to arguing the "truth", a short simple arguement bludgeoning a judge can be more effective. Is there any clear and present danger. N O . Hence.Code is INFORMATION. Information is protected. THEREFORE Code is protected. "sparky" Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/09/01 05:18 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On 9 Jan 2001, at 21:31, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:50:14PM -0600, sparky wrote: > > > two points. one is that with code your information will have a > > > direct effect (if the machine is working properly) and moreover, > > > you can reasonable expect that it does. > > > > I don't think this is correct. The code itself does nothing. > > Something must interpret the code. > > that is a technical point which - while correct - will hardly convince > a judge or anyone else. You sat this is the truth, but then state that it will do us no good to argue the truth in court. Are you saying our case should be built on untruths? What good would that do us? don't you think it is a better idea to argue the truth as many different ways and from as many different angles as is necessary to get the judge to realize that it is the truth? "I have this code of word and it makes a > wordprocessor. and this code of netscape makes me browse for porn. and > this code of decss make pirate copies". I don't think the argument > that you need a computer, microcode and and operating system will > convince a judge any more than the argument your nerve gas needs > oxygen to work would get you off the hook. You are saying that we are arguing that the code is not conduct because you need a computer or other programs to execute it. I don't think this is what the defense is arguing. I think they are arguing that code is speech, because it expresses ideas. It is not a matter where spreading nerve gas is okay because there is no oxygen; it is a matter of spreading information about how to create nerve gas, which is okay because such information is speech. > > > > It's just like a weblink: plaintiffs > > will argue that the weblink is a device, something that does an > > action or creates an effect. In fact the weblink is just a line of > > text which some other device reads. This other device then performs > > the action. There is no direct link between code and executed > > actions, or at least you'll have to make a more concentrated > > argument to convince there is. > > I'm afraid the problem is the other way around: it's we who must > convince the judge that it is not so. > > > > The action doesn't necessarily follow from the *writing* of the > > command. Writing just shows potential. Potential can be realized if > > you have *something else* which can interpret the writing and > > perform an action. > > again, I don't think the court cares. it's like shooting the president > - you're not exactly killing him, just taking a shot that has the > potential to inflict serious harm upon contact with his body. I think there's a mistake in assuming that code is like taking a shot at someone. If we shoot at someone, maybe we hit them, maybe we don't. The shot has the potential to hit the target, but we don't really know where the bullet will end up. But code is not "potential" in that we don't know the outcome of the code should it be run. We know what will happen when the code runs (if it is written correctly). Code is "potential" in that it is not the action it describes. It is related to the action, but is not the action itself. When it comes to this sort of "potential", absolutely the court cares. Describing an action is not the same as intent to perform the action. Of coures this sort of misses an important aspect of DeCSS, which is that it does not even "describe" piracy of copyrighted works. Only because 1201 allows encryption to qualify as copy control does DeCSS "describe" copyright infringement. however, > if you pull the trigger or write "launch(ICBM);", your intentions are > quite clear and whether or not the action follows directly or after > several intermediate steps is a technicality without the slightest > impact on the matter. Again, writing a command is does not show intent. Pulling the trigger and writing a command are not commensurate here. If you compared pulling the trigger to pressing the button that executed the "launch(ICBM)" command, or designing a trigger or gun or ICBM to writing the command, that would make more sense. sparky > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 10:41:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24899 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:41:48 -0500 Received: from cyclesoftware.com (www.cyclesoftware.com [209.46.107.178]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA24896 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:41:46 -0500 Received: from [209.46.107.185] ([209.46.107.185] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000793128 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:44:15 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:47:07 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting 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 8:11 pm -0500 1/9/2001, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: >According to the Apple web site http://www.apple.com/idvd/ their new >iDVD program"Handles up to one hour of video per DVD" That may be >one way they intend to prevent piracy. I believe there are also some >anti-piracy provisions in the latest Quicktime 5, which is required. Nah, that is just a consequence of the DVD-R media being single sided. Most pressed discs are two layer (look at the surface of the DVD, if it has a gold tint then it is multilayer). This alone will prevent wholesale piracy on the individual level at least until there is a "double density" DVD-R blank. What anti-piracy provisions are in the latest QuickTime 5 (I must not be paying close enough attention)? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 10:49:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25092 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:49:33 -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 KAA25089 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:49:31 -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; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:52:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:52:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/10/2001 07:52:23 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 "Truth is truth. you can't have opinions about truth" - Prof Peter Schickle. Even in the legal profession, eventually they have to deal with it (even though it may take decades). Well if you argue that code IS a bomb then there really more to be said. Obviously it should ALL be banned and all programmers should be registered and get their choice of lobotomy, Prozac overdose or lethal injection., You haven't answered what the CONDUCT is when one writes code. It only has conduct when EXECUTED on a computer. Ditto for bomb making instructions. They only have conduct when executed in a metal shop. The machine is irrelevant. It is the actions of the PERSON that is relevant and that is what must be legal or illegal. Anything else is censorship. The fact that a something MAY be used for an illegal act is no reason for something to be illegal (I've always had problems with the British law against having hosebreaking instruments by night. The USA has been enacting similar laws in recent years WRT to lockpicking tools) Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/10/01 01:29 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:15:53PM -0600, sparky wrote: > > that is a technical point which - while correct - will hardly convince > > a judge or anyone else. > > You sat this is the truth, but then state that it will do us no good to > argue the truth in court. correct. > Are you saying our case should be built on untruths? no, I'm saying that truth doesn't matter. > What good would that do us? don't you think it is a better > idea to argue the truth as many different ways and from as many > different angles as is necessary to get the judge to realize that it is > the truth? definitely not. all you'll do is confuse him and make him choose the plaintiff's side which is argued by fellow lawyers and as thus is almost guaranteed to be blatant lies but of a kind he understands. > You are saying that we are arguing that the code is not conduct > because you need a computer or other programs to execute it. I > don't think this is what the defense is arguing. I think they are > arguing that code is speech, because it expresses ideas. It is not > a matter where spreading nerve gas is okay because there is no > oxygen; it is a matter of spreading information about how to create > nerve gas, which is okay because such information is speech. but code is a different kind of instruction than a sheet of paper. all dialectic bla bla aside, I can't think of any other profession that earns even the same dimension of money by creating specific sets of "instructions". nobody would pay a freelance programmer for a sheet of paper with a prosa description of how to solve their problem. > > again, I don't think the court cares. it's like shooting the president > > - you're not exactly killing him, just taking a shot that has the > > potential to inflict serious harm upon contact with his body. > > I think there's a mistake in assuming that code is like taking a shot > at someone. If we shoot at someone, maybe we hit them, maybe > we don't. The shot has the potential to hit the target, but we don't > really know where the bullet will end up. But code is not "potential" > in that we don't know the outcome of the code should it be run. We > know what will happen when the code runs (if it is written > correctly). Code is "potential" in that it is not the action it > describes. It is related to the action, but is not the action itself. that's what I was saying in another thread: when you write the code you EXPECT it to accomplish an action. code is very rarely written as a description/instruction. it is always always written to do something and all the arguing about whether or not it is the action or just related to it will be technical ranting to a judge. > When it comes to this sort of "potential", absolutely the court > cares. Describing an action is not the same as intent to perform > the action. writing code is not like writing a bomb-building instruction. it's more like building a bomb - when you're finished, a few button presses are all that's between you and the action. > Again, writing a command is does not show intent. uh? when I write "rm *" without intent I must be pretty drunk. > Pulling the > trigger and writing a command are not commensurate here. If you > compared pulling the trigger to pressing the button that executed > the "launch(ICBM)" command, or designing a trigger or gun or > ICBM to writing the command, that would make more sense. but does it make any difference - in a legal sense - whether I start WW3 by pressing a button or with a commandline? definitely not. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 12:01:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA25756 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:01:54 -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 MAA25753 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:01:51 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pD950065C.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.92]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1DF27AD9 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:27 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8BEDD175182; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:13 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:13 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010110180212.C18816@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 07:52:19AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 07:52:19AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > "Truth is truth. you can't have opinions about truth" - Prof Peter > Schickle. Even in the legal profession, eventually they have to deal with > it (even though it may take decades). lucky you, you still have the idealism I lost. > Well if you argue that code IS a bomb then there really more to be said. > Obviously it should ALL be banned and all programmers should be registered > and get their choice of lobotomy, Prozac overdose or lethal injection., ...unless they're working for us." - quote MPAA end. ok, fabricated quote, but the current trend really IS that as a computer guy you are either working for a dot-com or you're an evil hacker, pirate, cyber-terrorist, and child abuser pretty much by definition. > You haven't answered what the CONDUCT is when one writes code. It only has > conduct when EXECUTED on a computer. Ditto for bomb making instructions. you missed the point. bomb making instructions don't make a bomb. but software instructions not only make, they ARE the software. you still need to execute them, but hey, a nuclear warhead in your basement shouldn't worry you either, after all, it still needs to be armed, right? it won't matter to the judge if the code still needs to be executed. I dare to say it won't even matter if it still needs to be COMPILED. he doesn't understand it, and if the MPAA picked him right, he's simply afraid of things he doesn't understand. > They only have conduct when executed in a metal shop. The machine is > irrelevant. It is the actions of the PERSON that is relevant and that is > what must be legal or illegal. Anything else is censorship. I agree. the problem is that me agreeing or not is worth absolutely nothing to 2600. make the JUDGE agree. my point is that you won't get there with this approach. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 16:07:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA27751 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:07:25 -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 QAA27748 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:07:23 -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; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:10:17 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:10:16 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/10/2001 01:10:17 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 Well thanks for calling me an idealist...my sister calls me a cynic but then she's a UU Minister....and I won't go into how insulted I feel reading MPAA propaganda about what I think about software and open source. My point is that ONLY executable code constitutes a complete set of instructions - source code by itself does NOT. BUt whether or not executable code is "conduct" is meaningless unless somebody ACTS upon it by executing it. At that point the ACT is what is legal or illegal. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/10/01 09:20 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 07:52:19AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > "Truth is truth. you can't have opinions about truth" - Prof Peter > Schickle. Even in the legal profession, eventually they have to deal with > it (even though it may take decades). lucky you, you still have the idealism I lost. > Well if you argue that code IS a bomb then there really more to be said. > Obviously it should ALL be banned and all programmers should be registered > and get their choice of lobotomy, Prozac overdose or lethal injection., ...unless they're working for us." - quote MPAA end. ok, fabricated quote, but the current trend really IS that as a computer guy you are either working for a dot-com or you're an evil hacker, pirate, cyber-terrorist, and child abuser pretty much by definition. > You haven't answered what the CONDUCT is when one writes code. It only has > conduct when EXECUTED on a computer. Ditto for bomb making instructions. you missed the point. bomb making instructions don't make a bomb. but software instructions not only make, they ARE the software. you still need to execute them, but hey, a nuclear warhead in your basement shouldn't worry you either, after all, it still needs to be armed, right? it won't matter to the judge if the code still needs to be executed. I dare to say it won't even matter if it still needs to be COMPILED. he doesn't understand it, and if the MPAA picked him right, he's simply afraid of things he doesn't understand. > They only have conduct when executed in a metal shop. The machine is > irrelevant. It is the actions of the PERSON that is relevant and that is > what must be legal or illegal. Anything else is censorship. I agree. the problem is that me agreeing or not is worth absolutely nothing to 2600. make the JUDGE agree. my point is that you won't get there with this approach. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 16:16:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA27905 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:16:28 -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 QAA27902 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:16:26 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5f2.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.242]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3557E27AD8 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:16:59 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 45FAB175182; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:16:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:16:49 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Message-ID: <20010110221648.C18965@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:16PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:16PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > My point is that ONLY executable code constitutes a complete set of > instructions - source code by itself does NOT. the problem is that that's not a sharp boundary. interpreted languages, just-in-time compilers, etc blur the line a lot. so much that it'll be easy for the plaintiffs to burry the judge in these technical details until he's heard enough of it all and just doesn't listen anymore. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 17:49:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA28810 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:49:26 -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 RAA28807 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:49:24 -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 QAA01018 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:52:23 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A5CE7F4.3A13D3DA@uic.edu> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:53:40 -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: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 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 On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:16PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > My point is that ONLY executable code constitutes a complete set of > instructions - source code by itself does NOT. That's like my saying that ONLY books written in English constitute a complete set of instructions. Books written in French do NOT. (Because I don't understand French.) Tom@lemuria writes: > the problem is that that's not a sharp boundary. interpreted languages, > just-in-time compilers, etc blur the line a lot. so much that it'll be > easy for the plaintiffs to burry the judge in these technical details > until he's heard enough of it all and just doesn't listen anymore. Yes, and the argument should be abandoned. It's a bad and counterproductive argument. There is NO meaningful difference between source code and executable code. Compiling a program is nothing more then the translation of a work from a common language to an obscure language. Specifically, compilation does NOT translate a work into a non-human-readable language. I spent a great many years as an IBM S/370 systems programmer, and many times I found myself having to debug and correct software defects where all I had was the binary object code. After years of daily working experience, my proficiency reached a point where assembly language was a more familiar and comfortable computer language to me then C or Pascal, and in many cases, I was able to correct software defects and add new features by directly reading, analyzing, and altering the binary instructions themselves. Once you know how to do it, it is NO more difficult then reading and writing in a second language. Of course, the learning curve is tremendous, and machine languages often disappear within a few years, as the machines that can execute them become obsolete. But that doesn't matter. The fact that direct reading of machine instructions is mostly a lost art, or an extremely specialized activity does NOT mean that machine language is not an expressive language, or that program compilation (again, NOTHING more than an automated translation from a common language to an obscure language) turns a "writing" into a "machine", or otherwise changes its nature, to any greater extent then the nature of a writing is changed by translation from, say, English to French. o Programs, in any form, are expressive speech. (If they aren't, then do they deserve copyright protection?) o Computer hardware is a device. o Running a program on computer hardware is conduct. Trying to mix the three yields meaningless results, and even worse, the disasterous legal result that reading, writing, and publication in certain languages need not be subject to First Amendment protection, so long as the language is obscure. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 20:10:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA29137 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:10:28 -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 UAA29134 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:10:25 -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; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:13:17 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:13:15 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/10/2001 05:13:17 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 Oh...but do you notice what I am saying creates a VERY sharp boundary. No harm has been committed so the issue of content vs speech is as academic a question as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is the basic problem with the DMCA and the DeCSS. The plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate ANY harm to them - only the possible potential for harm. Bad laws like the DMCA make acts illegal despite the fact that there is no harm or that the harm may be so minuscule that the law has no remedy (I've forgotten what the latin phrase is). Source code, interpreters, compilers, linkers, loaders, computers, an arcwelder , a bandsaw or a shotgun are just things. It is how they are used that matters not what they are or what are their attributes. The fact that software is easier to use to do many things is really irrelevant to HOW it is used. As for blurring the judge...that may be the bad luck of the draw. ANother judge may not be blurred. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/10/01 01:21 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:16PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > My point is that ONLY executable code constitutes a complete set of > instructions - source code by itself does NOT. the problem is that that's not a sharp boundary. interpreted languages, just-in-time compilers, etc blur the line a lot. so much that it'll be easy for the plaintiffs to burry the judge in these technical details until he's heard enough of it all and just doesn't listen anymore. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 10 20:34:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA29299 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:34:15 -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 UAA29296 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:34:09 -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; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:37:02 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:37:02 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/10/2001 05:37:03 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 Absolutely! o Programs, in any form, are expressive speech. (If they aren't, then do they deserve copyright protection?) o Computer hardware is a device. o Running a program on computer hardware is conduct. I agree. The instructions by themselves are meaningless without the knowledge. Without the device they won't run. What the person does with the instructions determines their legality or not. I don't see how anything else is workable. Trying to put in shades of grey will end up creating more problems. The line must be drawn at the end user NOT at some daffy language level....If nothing else, I can see a bunch of people trying to register people who can deal with assembly language as they register sex offenders. Ahhh yess that brings back memories.... I too have my BAL 370 scars.....(with Windows these days they give you a core dump that's USELESS!and atleast when I got a core dump on an IBM I knew where the file where the secret codes were kept and could read byte 8 in register 16 (?)...)..Actually, once I looked at assembly code for a Tex. Inst. 32020 DSP chip written by a top notch programmer vs "C" code written for a 68000. The assembly code was much easier to understand and read. John Schulien Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 01/10/01 02:54 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:16PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > My point is that ONLY executable code constitutes a complete set of > instructions - source code by itself does NOT. That's like my saying that ONLY books written in English constitute a complete set of instructions. Books written in French do NOT. (Because I don't understand French.) Tom@lemuria writes: > the problem is that that's not a sharp boundary. interpreted languages, > just-in-time compilers, etc blur the line a lot. so much that it'll be > easy for the plaintiffs to burry the judge in these technical details > until he's heard enough of it all and just doesn't listen anymore. Yes, and the argument should be abandoned. It's a bad and counterproductive argument. There is NO meaningful difference between source code and executable code. Compiling a program is nothing more then the translation of a work from a common language to an obscure language. Specifically, compilation does NOT translate a work into a non-human-readable language. I spent a great many years as an IBM S/370 systems programmer, and many times I found myself having to debug and correct software defects where all I had was the binary object code. After years of daily working experience, my proficiency reached a point where assembly language was a more familiar and comfortable computer language to me then C or Pascal, and in many cases, I was able to correct software defects and add new features by directly reading, analyzing, and altering the binary instructions themselves. Once you know how to do it, it is NO more difficult then reading and writing in a second language. Of course, the learning curve is tremendous, and machine languages often disappear within a few years, as the machines that can execute them become obsolete. But that doesn't matter. The fact that direct reading of machine instructions is mostly a lost art, or an extremely specialized activity does NOT mean that machine language is not an expressive language, or that program compilation (again, NOTHING more than an automated translation from a common language to an obscure language) turns a "writing" into a "machine", or otherwise changes its nature, to any greater extent then the nature of a writing is changed by translation from, say, English to French. o Programs, in any form, are expressive speech. (If they aren't, then do they deserve copyright protection?) o Computer hardware is a device. o Running a program on computer hardware is conduct. Trying to mix the three yields meaningless results, and even worse, the disasterous legal result that reading, writing, and publication in certain languages need not be subject to First Amendment protection, so long as the language is obscure. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 08:36:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA01219 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:36:49 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA01216 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:36:48 -0500 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 IAA01241 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:37:48 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: reinhold@world.std.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:34:49 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting 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 9:47 AM -0600 1/10/2001, steve bryan wrote: >At 8:11 pm -0500 1/9/2001, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: >>According to the Apple web site http://www.apple.com/idvd/ their >>new iDVD program"Handles up to one hour of video per DVD" That may >>be one way they intend to prevent piracy. I believe there are also >>some anti-piracy provisions in the latest Quicktime 5, which is >>required. > >Nah, that is just a consequence of the DVD-R media being single >sided. Most pressed discs are two layer (look at the surface of the >DVD, if it has a gold tint then it is multilayer). This alone will >prevent wholesale piracy on the individual level at least until >there is a "double density" DVD-R blank. What anti-piracy provisions >are in the latest QuickTime 5 (I must not be paying close enough >attention)? I had heard that Quicktime 5 included some additional copy protection features, but I haven't been able to find anything on that. Also it is still in beta, so I assume it is not required for the new players. I did find a page on QT4 copy protection http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/quicktime/qt4beta/QT4WebPage/sampl e2.htm#18121 that isn't so relevant to DVDs. It did have an interesting comment: "A Word to the Wise There's a lot of interest in securing movies and, yes, there are a lot of useful tricks, but, no, there is no 100% foolproof method--someone can always point a movie camera at the screen. Sometimes the best answer is jujitsu; instead of fighting the force, redirect it to your benefit. Add your logo to the movie and include a live link back to your website. QuickTime makes it easy to do both. Every copy becomes free advertising. If every copy of your rock video is a clickable link to buy the CD. . . People love to copy things. Use viral marketing to make this force of nature your friend. Ahem, that said. . ." It goes on to describe how to set a bit so your movie will not be saved or copied by any Quicktime application. I wonder if the new drives could write a "double density" DVD-R blank if it were available? Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 10:51:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02772 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:51:35 -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 KAA02768 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:51:26 -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, 11 Jan 2001 07:54:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:54:21 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/11/2001 07:54:23 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 Of course, anybody with experience in assembly language can do a patch on the executable to eliminate their noncopy feature....that probably shouldn't be mentioned near any courtroom or legislative body..they may want to register assembly language programmers as they do sex offenders. I'm beginning to get tired of the idea that Adobe or Apple or Microstupid will provide the world with nice software that prevents people from possibly doing anything bad. I'm starting to think "OK stupid. You supposedy know computers. You supposedly know software. You supposedly didn't sleep through ALL your computer science classes...You should know that you can't prevent the copying or modification on the computer, then if you don't want that to happen DON"T put it on a computer and since you are putting it on computers then that's too bad and just shut up." In some ways by making things available on computers, content providers ARE giving up some of the rights they traditionally had regarding copying. "Arnold G. Reinhold" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more arvard.edu interesting 01/11/01 05:41 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 9:47 AM -0600 1/10/2001, steve bryan wrote: >At 8:11 pm -0500 1/9/2001, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: >>According to the Apple web site http://www.apple.com/idvd/ their >>new iDVD program"Handles up to one hour of video per DVD" That may >>be one way they intend to prevent piracy. I believe there are also >>some anti-piracy provisions in the latest Quicktime 5, which is >>required. > >Nah, that is just a consequence of the DVD-R media being single >sided. Most pressed discs are two layer (look at the surface of the >DVD, if it has a gold tint then it is multilayer). This alone will >prevent wholesale piracy on the individual level at least until >there is a "double density" DVD-R blank. What anti-piracy provisions >are in the latest QuickTime 5 (I must not be paying close enough >attention)? I had heard that Quicktime 5 included some additional copy protection features, but I haven't been able to find anything on that. Also it is still in beta, so I assume it is not required for the new players. I did find a page on QT4 copy protection http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/quicktime/qt4beta/QT4WebPage/sampl e2.htm#18121 that isn't so relevant to DVDs. It did have an interesting comment: "A Word to the Wise There's a lot of interest in securing movies and, yes, there are a lot of useful tricks, but, no, there is no 100% foolproof method--someone can always point a movie camera at the screen. Sometimes the best answer is jujitsu; instead of fighting the force, redirect it to your benefit. Add your logo to the movie and include a live link back to your website. QuickTime makes it easy to do both. Every copy becomes free advertising. If every copy of your rock video is a clickable link to buy the CD. . . People love to copy things. Use viral marketing to make this force of nature your friend. Ahem, that said. . ." It goes on to describe how to set a bit so your movie will not be saved or copied by any Quicktime application. I wonder if the new drives could write a "double density" DVD-R blank if it were available? Arnold Reinhold From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 11:08:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02943 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:08:37 -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 LAA02940 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:08:33 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pD950062E.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.46]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF8F27AD8 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:09:11 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7EFBF175182; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:08:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:08:59 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010111170858.E19781@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 07:54:21AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 07:54:21AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > I'm beginning to get tired of the idea that Adobe or Apple or Microstupid > will provide the world with nice software that prevents people from > possibly doing anything bad. I'm starting to think "OK stupid. You > supposedy know computers. You supposedly know software. You supposedly > didn't sleep through ALL your computer science classes...You should know > that you can't prevent the copying or modification on the computer, then if > you don't want that to happen DON"T put it on a computer and since you are > putting it on computers then that's too bad and just shut up." In some ways > by making things available on computers, content providers ARE giving up > some of the rights they traditionally had regarding copying. however, not only do they not want to do that, they'd also love to get a couple additional rights. since the technical approach is doomed to fail (as the software copy-protection wars should've shown 10+ years ago) they're now doing the legal roundkick - "yeah, sure you can patch the binary to save the movie to disk, but we'll make sure you are breaking so many laws that you'd better say bye to your family first, because when you come out of prison, you won't recognize the half that's still alive anymore." -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 11:54:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03368 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:54:40 -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 LAA03365 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:54:36 -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, 11 Jan 2001 08:57:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:57:30 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/11/2001 08:57:32 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 They didn't learn from Borland's Turbo Pascal Either. When 1.0 came out at $49.95 it was so cheap that who would bother copying it. I guess my attitude on much of the commercialization of the internet is that if you don't like the groundrules stay off it. Nobody is forcing media providers onto it. The prospect of having "BIG BROTHER" software installed on my computer is depressing. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting 01/11/01 08:13 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 07:54:21AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > I'm beginning to get tired of the idea that Adobe or Apple or Microstupid > will provide the world with nice software that prevents people from > possibly doing anything bad. I'm starting to think "OK stupid. You > supposedy know computers. You supposedly know software. You supposedly > didn't sleep through ALL your computer science classes...You should know > that you can't prevent the copying or modification on the computer, then if > you don't want that to happen DON"T put it on a computer and since you are > putting it on computers then that's too bad and just shut up." In some ways > by making things available on computers, content providers ARE giving up > some of the rights they traditionally had regarding copying. however, not only do they not want to do that, they'd also love to get a couple additional rights. since the technical approach is doomed to fail (as the software copy-protection wars should've shown 10+ years ago) they're now doing the legal roundkick - "yeah, sure you can patch the binary to save the movie to disk, but we'll make sure you are breaking so many laws that you'd better say bye to your family first, because when you come out of prison, you won't recognize the half that's still alive anymore." -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 12:01:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03520 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:01:31 -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 MAA03517 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:01:29 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pD950062E.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.46]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89F627AD8 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:02:07 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 75E91175182; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:01:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:01:59 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010111180158.J19781@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:57:30AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:57:30AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > They didn't learn from Borland's Turbo Pascal Either. When 1.0 came out at > $49.95 it was so cheap that who would bother copying it. > > I guess my attitude on much of the commercialization of the internet is > that if you don't like the groundrules stay off it. Nobody is forcing media > providers onto it. The prospect of having "BIG BROTHER" software installed > on my computer is depressing. yes and no. the "groundrules" are defined by all participants, including the companies. however, in the real world they have a grossly enlarged representation, and they try to get the same on the net. there should be a strict 1 person = 1 vote rule. need a new law? vote on it. disney being 1 legal person has 1 vote, not the couple hundred congressmen they regularily buy. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 12:01:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03510 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:01:15 -0500 Received: from cyclesoftware.com (www.cyclesoftware.com [209.46.107.178]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA03507 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:01:13 -0500 Received: from [204.1.1.128] ([204.1.1.128] verified) by cyclesoftware.com (Stalker SMTP Server 1.8b6) with ESMTP id S.0000794756 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:03:41 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: steve_bryan@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:06:35 -0600 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: steve bryan Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting 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 7:54 am -0800 1/11/2001, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >Of course, anybody with experience in assembly language can do a patch on >the executable to eliminate their noncopy feature....that probably >shouldn't be mentioned near any courtroom or legislative body..they may >want to register assembly language programmers as they do sex offenders. > >I'm beginning to get tired of the idea that Adobe or Apple or Microstupid >will provide the world with nice software that prevents people from >possibly doing anything bad. I'm starting to think "OK stupid. You >supposedy know computers. You supposedly know software. You supposedly >didn't sleep through ALL your computer science classes...You should know >that you can't prevent the copying or modification on the computer, then if >you don't want that to happen DON"T put it on a computer and since you are >putting it on computers then that's too bad and just shut up." In some ways >by making things available on computers, content providers ARE giving up >some of the rights they traditionally had regarding copying. While visiting a friend at the Apple campus at Infinite Loop last spring, I happened to find myself speaking at lunch with a cryptographer who represents Apple at various conferences. He explained that the Hollywood people just didn't get the idea that you could erect barriers of increasing "cost" that would make infringement increasingly difficult and/or costly. But that there was no SOLUTION. For instance, when Apple released its DVD player application it made it not work when the standard Macsbug debugger was loaded. Most Apple developers automatically run their machines with Macsbug installed. This meant that whenever this sort of Mac owner wanted to view a DVD, he had to restart his machine with Macsbug disabled and restart it again after viewing with Macsbug enabled. Eventually a developer (I think it might have been Rich Siegel, author of BBEdit) created a patch for the DVD Player application that disabled this annoying behavior. In general I think it is fair to say that most computer people involved understand that bits is bits and you can't both offer them for perusal and at the same time deny access to them. You can play various shell games with the user but it is a losing proposition because the design requirements are unreasonable. The insidious thing is that 'protecting' this Hollywood crap is the driving force behind laws like DMCA which is an attempt to use the state's monopoly on the use of force to enforce what cannot be accomplished by technical means. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 12:07:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03705 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:07:16 -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 MAA03701 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:07:09 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14GlEm-0005Ja-00; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:10:08 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14GlEm-0000CY-00; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:10:08 +0100 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:10:08 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010111181007.A20323@inka.de> References: <20010111180158.J19781@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010111180158.J19781@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:01:59PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > there > should be a strict 1 person = 1 vote rule. need a new law? vote on it. > disney being 1 legal person has 1 vote, not the couple hundred > congressmen they regularily buy. Minor problem: Disney has a great many subsidiaries (no doubt they'd create even more if what you suggest were implemented), which would also be considered "legal persons" with a vote each. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 12:27:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04028 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:27:31 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA04025 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:27:29 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f0BHTcX19748 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:29:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A5DED9D.A9EC545@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:30:05 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting 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'm starting to think "OK stupid. You > supposedy know computers. You supposedly know software. You supposedly > didn't sleep through ALL your computer science classes...You should know > that you can't prevent the copying or modification on the computer, then if > you don't want that to happen DON"T put it on a computer and since you are > putting it on computers then that's too bad and just shut up." In some ways > by making things available on computers, content providers ARE giving up > some of the rights they traditionally had regarding copying. > Yes, like the doctor says, "If it hurts, don't do that ." It's silly for someone to complain that online information gets copied. The sole purpose of a network is to copy information. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 16:22:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05793 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:22:27 -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 QAA05790 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:22:19 -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, 11 Jan 2001 13:25:03 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:25:02 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/11/2001 01:25:03 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 My elitist snobbery is showing...you're right, companies are "persons" too under the 14th amendment and so are entitled to ONE vote. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting 01/11/01 09:06 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:57:30AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > They didn't learn from Borland's Turbo Pascal Either. When 1.0 came out at > $49.95 it was so cheap that who would bother copying it. > > I guess my attitude on much of the commercialization of the internet is > that if you don't like the groundrules stay off it. Nobody is forcing media > providers onto it. The prospect of having "BIG BROTHER" software installed > on my computer is depressing. yes and no. the "groundrules" are defined by all participants, including the companies. however, in the real world they have a grossly enlarged representation, and they try to get the same on the net. there should be a strict 1 person = 1 vote rule. need a new law? vote on it. disney being 1 legal person has 1 vote, not the couple hundred congressmen they regularily buy. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 16:30:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05932 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:30:22 -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 QAA05928 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:30:14 -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, 11 Jan 2001 13:33:07 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:33:06 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/11/2001 01:33:07 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 As an applied mathematician I accepted the impossibility of squaring the circle, duplicating the cube, and trisecting the angle a few decades ago (sigh). A short time after that, I accepted the consequences of universal Turing machines ,the halting problem, and the impossibility of a universal anti-virus program (which is a cool proof. Contradiction by explicit construction)....It's not surprising that the Movie crowd wouldn't grasp the concepts. Actually, you bring up much of the problem with the DeCSS and the DMCA. THe ONLY way to accomplish that end is to have a totalitarian system that would make the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany look like flower children. steve bryan To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more arvard.edu interesting 01/11/01 09:07 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 7:54 am -0800 1/11/2001, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >Of course, anybody with experience in assembly language can do a patch on >the executable to eliminate their noncopy feature....that probably >shouldn't be mentioned near any courtroom or legislative body..they may >want to register assembly language programmers as they do sex offenders. > >I'm beginning to get tired of the idea that Adobe or Apple or Microstupid >will provide the world with nice software that prevents people from >possibly doing anything bad. I'm starting to think "OK stupid. You >supposedy know computers. You supposedly know software. You supposedly >didn't sleep through ALL your computer science classes...You should know >that you can't prevent the copying or modification on the computer, then if >you don't want that to happen DON"T put it on a computer and since you are >putting it on computers then that's too bad and just shut up." In some ways >by making things available on computers, content providers ARE giving up >some of the rights they traditionally had regarding copying. While visiting a friend at the Apple campus at Infinite Loop last spring, I happened to find myself speaking at lunch with a cryptographer who represents Apple at various conferences. He explained that the Hollywood people just didn't get the idea that you could erect barriers of increasing "cost" that would make infringement increasingly difficult and/or costly. But that there was no SOLUTION. For instance, when Apple released its DVD player application it made it not work when the standard Macsbug debugger was loaded. Most Apple developers automatically run their machines with Macsbug installed. This meant that whenever this sort of Mac owner wanted to view a DVD, he had to restart his machine with Macsbug disabled and restart it again after viewing with Macsbug enabled. Eventually a developer (I think it might have been Rich Siegel, author of BBEdit) created a patch for the DVD Player application that disabled this annoying behavior. In general I think it is fair to say that most computer people involved understand that bits is bits and you can't both offer them for perusal and at the same time deny access to them. You can play various shell games with the user but it is a losing proposition because the design requirements are unreasonable. The insidious thing is that 'protecting' this Hollywood crap is the driving force behind laws like DMCA which is an attempt to use the state's monopoly on the use of force to enforce what cannot be accomplished by technical means. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 16:32:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA05973 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:32:14 -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 QAA05970 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:32:12 -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; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:35:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:35:03 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/11/2001 01:35:05 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 Nicely put. Of course, they would counter that they want you to buy those higher bandwidth connections so you could read THEIR ads and buy THEIR merchandise. mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more arvard.edu interesting 01/11/01 09:33 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > I'm starting to think "OK stupid. You > supposedy know computers. You supposedly know software. You supposedly > didn't sleep through ALL your computer science classes...You should know > that you can't prevent the copying or modification on the computer, then if > you don't want that to happen DON"T put it on a computer and since you are > putting it on computers then that's too bad and just shut up." In some ways > by making things available on computers, content providers ARE giving up > some of the rights they traditionally had regarding copying. > Yes, like the doctor says, "If it hurts, don't do that ." It's silly for someone to complain that online information gets copied. The sole purpose of a network is to copy information. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 18:24:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06471 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:24:05 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f234.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.234]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06468 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:24:02 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:26:33 -0800 Received: from 63.224.103.179 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:26:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.224.103.179] From: "K Phill" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:26:33 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2001 23:26:33.0933 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF7377D0:01C07C25] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >From: "Juergen + Barbara" > >don't get you hopes too high here; and, BTW, get the facts straight: > >1) the companies providing PCs with preloaded Windows9x are paying >Microsoft a mere $1! (If the customer ordered, say, Windows NT, >that had cost extra $125.) >(I used to be Product Manager for a big PC company two years ago. If it only cost the manufactures $1.00 for a copy of windows, then it should have been real easy for microsoft to cut 50 $1.00 checks and given them to those that asked for the refund. The fact is that only a few manufactures pay $1.00, because of the large quantity of machines they produce it is more important for microsoft to assure market dominance. Also, if you don't play by microsoft's "rules" (such as having to display the window's logo on bootup or include the right internet browser), your company will not be eligible for such "sweetheart" deals. These kind of comments have been made time and again and is accepted fact as to Microsoft's practices; http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/4093.html> >2) those companies then DO support any problems here with Windows and >software provided Some companies do, others don't. For the customers that don't get the support they need, according to any EULA I've seen, they have no legal recourse. Because there are "good" companies that give technical support does not in some way "justify" a shrinkwrap license in the first place. >3) and: goto windowsupdate.microsoft.com, and you get any (major) bugfixes >automagically, for free! Including support releases; >e.g., Office 2000 support patch SR1a some 52MB (about 8 min download time >on my DSL connection); again, for free! You know that's really great for people with DSL connection, but it's a real drag if you're stuck with 56k like the vast majority and have to tie up your phone line for three hours every time you have to do a windows re-install. The fact is microsoft doesn't want people to know about their bugs; http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15337.html Phill _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 19:08:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06757 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:08:24 -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 TAA06754 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:08:21 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:11:26 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:11:25 -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: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org] ... > > I *am* saying that code is not speech, but it's not conduct either - > it's both. think photon/wave/particle. I like the analogy ... but there's a hard selling point. The wave/particle business is because we must deal with theory in physics, noone can -look- at a photon. You can see code, so it's harder to argue the indeterminate nature of it. > > I'm not sure what exactly to argue in a court. common sense and > intelligence seemingly have to be dropped at the door, It's a court of law ... what did you expect? ;-) -- -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 Thu Jan 11 20:50:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA07065 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:50:41 -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 UAA07062 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:50:39 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16790; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:53:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:53:40 -0500 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200101120153.UAA16790@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: <20010111181007.A20323@inka.de> References: <20010111180158.J19781@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: >> there >> should be a strict 1 person = 1 vote rule. need a new law? vote on it. >> disney being 1 legal person has 1 vote, not the couple hundred >> congressmen they regularily buy. > >Minor problem: Disney has a great many subsidiaries (no doubt they'd create >even more if what you suggest were implemented), which would also be >considered "legal persons" with a vote each. Not if only _people_ can vote. Companies must not have *any* rights. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 21:40:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07238 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:40:57 -0500 Received: from spdmraac.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-3.compuserve.com [149.174.206.154]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07235 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:40:55 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id VAA24423 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:43:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-sfs-vty33.as.wcom.net [216.192.38.33]) by spdmraac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id VAA24365 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:43:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:44:36 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Disposition-Notification-To: "Juergen + Barbara" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu If you have (as a company an OEM contract, then you pay just marginal fees, based on volume). But please think your argument through, re the $1 checks. How would you feel then being offered a $1 check? Or other users who had perhaps paid $85 for their retail copy instead of mere $1? Or the vendors of competing products? ( Well, most of the OS seem to be for free, too; the Power-MAc has Mac OS preinstalled; Linus is available for free, so is SCO OpenServer 5 and SCO UnixWare 2.1 and 7 -- at least for home installaions; etc. Also: the PC manufacturers (optionall) pre-installing Windows9x (for free) had rigorously tested and qualified their platform and peripherals. And they are bound to provide support for Windows9x and what ever they (pre) install as OEM software from Microsoft. So the $1 (OEM license) vs the $85 (full Microsoft license) do not quite compare. *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of K Phill Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Januar 2001 15:27 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" >From: "Juergen + Barbara" > >don't get you hopes too high here; and, BTW, get the facts straight: > >1) the companies providing PCs with preloaded Windows9x are paying >Microsoft a mere $1! (If the customer ordered, say, Windows NT, >that had cost extra $125.) >(I used to be Product Manager for a big PC company two years ago. If it only cost the manufactures $1.00 for a copy of windows, then it should have been real easy for microsoft to cut 50 $1.00 checks and given them to those that asked for the refund. (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 11 22:10:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA07849 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:10:38 -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 WAA07845 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:10:36 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13375 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:08:49 -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 smtpdAAAwWaGcA; Thu Jan 11 20:08:38 2001 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 UAA15137 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:13:19 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:13:19 -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: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01011120131900.22284@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 11 January 2001 19:44, Juergen + Barbara wrote: # If you have (as a company an OEM contract, then you pay just marginal fees, based on volume). # # But please think your argument through, re the $1 checks. # # How would you feel then being offered a $1 check? # Or other users who had perhaps paid $85 for their retail copy instead of mere $1? # Or the vendors of competing products? ( # Well, most of the OS seem to be for free, too; the Power-MAc has Mac OS preinstalled; Linus is available for free, so is SCO # OpenServer 5 and SCO UnixWare 2.1 and 7 -- at least for home installaions; etc. # # Also: the PC manufacturers (optionall) pre-installing Windows9x (for free) had rigorously tested and qualified their platform and # peripherals. And they are bound to provide support for Windows9x and what ever they (pre) install as OEM software from Microsoft. # # So the $1 (OEM license) vs the $85 (full Microsoft license) do not quite compare. What really impresses me is that 40% of Microsoft's ~$15 billion annual revenues comes from OS sales, with the vast majority being OEM sales. Which means that they must be selling about six billion copies a year, or one per year for every man, woman, and child on Earth. That, or the $1/copy is slightly under the reality. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 03:05:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA11106 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:05:13 -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 DAA11103 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:05:11 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14GzFt-0003MF-00; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:08:13 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14GzFu-0006Wx-00; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:08:14 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:08:14 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010112090813.B20323@inka.de> References: <20010111180158.J19781@lemuria.org> <20010111181007.A20323@inka.de> <200101120153.UAA16790@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200101120153.UAA16790@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com>; from jfbauer@home.com on Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:53:40PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:53:40PM -0500, Jim Bauer wrote: > Sham Gardner wrote: > >> there > >> should be a strict 1 person = 1 vote rule. need a new law? vote on it. > >> disney being 1 legal person has 1 vote, not the couple hundred > >> congressmen they regularily buy. > > > >Minor problem: Disney has a great many subsidiaries (no doubt they'd create > >even more if what you suggest were implemented), which would also be > >considered "legal persons" with a vote each. > > Not if only _people_ can vote. Companies must not have *any* rights. Yes I quite agree, Tom was suggesting otherwise and I was poiting out the flaw in his plan. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 04:58:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA11574 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:58:02 -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 EAA11571 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:57:49 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd9500663.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.99]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424C827AF1 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:58:04 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C9BC3175182; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:57:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:57:57 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010112105757.H20444@lemuria.org> References: <20010111180158.J19781@lemuria.org> <20010111181007.A20323@inka.de> <200101120153.UAA16790@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20010112090813.B20323@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: <20010112090813.B20323@inka.de>; from mail@risctaker.inka.de on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:08:14AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:08:14AM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > Not if only _people_ can vote. Companies must not have *any* rights. > > Yes I quite agree, Tom was suggesting otherwise and I was poiting out the > flaw in his plan. of course, only companies could vote, not every branch of every company. I'd be quite interested in finding out how disney intends to create enough companies to vote instead of buy a second mickey mouse copyright extension act. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 05:05:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA11677 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:05:58 -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 FAA11674 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:05:37 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14H18M-0004jG-00; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:08:34 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14H18N-0007Za-00; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:08:35 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:08:35 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010112110835.C20323@inka.de> References: <20010111180158.J19781@lemuria.org> <20010111181007.A20323@inka.de> <200101120153.UAA16790@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20010112090813.B20323@inka.de> <20010112105757.H20444@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010112105757.H20444@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100, Tom wrote: > of course, only companies could vote, not every branch of every > company. So a company owned by individuals is a "real" company, but a company owned by another company is not? what about public companies consisting of thousands or millions of shares? How many would have to be owned by other companies for it to lose its right to vote? For that matter how would its ownership be tracked, given how fast shares change hands? Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 06:17:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA12599 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:17:01 -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 GAA12596 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:16:59 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id F304027AB9; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:17:37 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:17:37 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010112121736.A13893@lemuria.org> References: <20010111180158.J19781@lemuria.org> <20010111181007.A20323@inka.de> <200101120153.UAA16790@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20010112090813.B20323@inka.de> <20010112105757.H20444@lemuria.org> <20010112110835.C20323@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: <20010112110835.C20323@inka.de>; from mail@risctaker.inka.de on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:08:35AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:08:35AM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > > of course, only companies could vote, not every branch of every > > company. > > So a company owned by individuals is a "real" company, but a company owned > by another company is not? nope, ownership doesn't matter. but sony inc. would have one vote, not one per building they own or subsidiary they have. > what about public companies consisting of > thousands or millions of shares? How many would have to be owned by other > companies for it to lose its right to vote? For that matter how would its > ownership be tracked, given how fast shares change hands? ownership doesn't matter. the point is that there's lots more humans around than corporations. and even if disney suddenly creates 100,000 new companies to rig the elections, they'd be spending a couple million bucks on that and STILL not stand a chance against 250 mio. americans. of course, as in all things, abuse has to be considered and acted on. the beauty of this system is that your abuse has to be so large that it's extremely obvious in order to even make a difference. but this is not only off-topic, it's also irrelevant as long as corporations can still buy their right in the courts of law. they don't even have to bribe the judge (though I'd be extremely surprised if that wouldn't happen at least occasionally), they just can pay the better lawyers and/or drag the case out until the private person they're suing runs out of money. which was quite visible in the DVD cases. if it weren't for the EFF, the cases would've been over in a flash a year ago. then again, I'm getting more into fight mode again these days. I guess the next time MPAA sends me a letter I'll get myself a lawyer and countersue them - in a GERMAN court, under german law. there should be something in our AD 1900 common law that they're violating. they sure rigged their little extortion scheme so that they're not vulnerable to direct attacks on the grounds of price fixing, market segmentation or violation of free trade - but al capone went to jail for tax evasion, so maybe we've all been looking at things the wrong way. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 06:24:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA12717 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:24:30 -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 GAA12714 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:24:23 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14H2Md-0003rW-00; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:27:23 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14H2Mf-00088u-00; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:27:25 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:27:25 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010112122725.B30988@inka.de> References: <20010111180158.J19781@lemuria.org> <20010111181007.A20323@inka.de> <200101120153.UAA16790@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20010112090813.B20323@inka.de> <20010112105757.H20444@lemuria.org> <20010112110835.C20323@inka.de> <20010112121736.A13893@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010112121736.A13893@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:17:37PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:17:37PM +0100, Tom wrote: > then again, I'm getting more into fight mode again these days. I guess > the next time MPAA sends me a letter [off-list, not wishing to tempt fate] BTW, do you know of any longstanding reasonably visible mirror that hasn't received a letter? I'm beginning to feel left out. ;) Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 06:27:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA12785 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:27:24 -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 GAA12779 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:27:22 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 14H2PY-00041j-00; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:30:24 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 14H2Pa-0008AI-00; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:30:26 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:30:26 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010112123026.C30988@inka.de> References: <20010111180158.J19781@lemuria.org> <20010111181007.A20323@inka.de> <200101120153.UAA16790@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> <20010112090813.B20323@inka.de> <20010112105757.H20444@lemuria.org> <20010112110835.C20323@inka.de> <20010112121736.A13893@lemuria.org> <20010112122725.B30988@inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010112122725.B30988@inka.de>; from mail@risctaker.inka.de on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:27:25PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:27:25PM +0100, Sham Gardner wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:17:37PM +0100, Tom wrote: > > then again, I'm getting more into fight mode again these days. I guess > > the next time MPAA sends me a letter > > [off-list, not wishing to tempt fate] > > BTW, do you know of any longstanding reasonably visible mirror that hasn't > received a letter? I'm beginning to feel left out. ;) Arrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! ;) -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 07:25:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA13164 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:25:16 -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 HAA13161 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:25:11 -0500 From: kyhwana@world-net.co.nz Received: from leopard (nw3-55.world-net.co.nz [202.37.68.55]) by mail.world-net.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28518 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:28:42 +1300 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:25:43 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding Message-ID: <3A5FAE97.4816.AC7263@localhost> 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 Does anyone know how region coding works, or anywhere that outlines it? I mean technically, does it depend on the software player to recognise it? Or does the firmwire read what region the disc is when you (insert|play)? it? Since technically, when you read the disc under linux you arn't playing it, does it let you even read from the drive if the region codes don't match? Daniel Richards - http://leopard.osoal.org.nz/ PGP Pub key: http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DanielRPubKey.asc Fingerprint: 4F09 7B12 03F9 10BD 688A 1D6F 38C5 9CAA 64BD C6F1 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 07:40:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA13345 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:40:29 -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 HAA13342 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:40:23 -0500 From: kyhwana@world-net.co.nz Received: from leopard (nw3-55.world-net.co.nz [202.37.68.55]) by mail.world-net.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA30076 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:43:53 +1300 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:40:50 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <3A5FB222.14957.BA4800@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010112122725.B30988@inka.de> References: <20010112121736.A13893@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:17:37PM +0100 X-PM-Encryptor: IDWPGP-PM32, 4 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12 Jan 2001, at 12:27, Sham Gardner wrote: > BTW, do you know of any longstanding reasonably visible mirror that hasn't > received a letter? I'm beginning to feel left out. ;) > > Sham Hmm, I've had mine up for a while, and i've only recieved one letter, a while ago. They auctally sent it to my ISP, who I convinced to ignore it. (My ISP auctally said something about not having files without owning the copyright on them, or something?) I mentioned it was licensed under the GPL, and various other things. I think I still have it around somewhere *scrounge* (seems osoal.org.nz has screwed up it's nameservers again, sigh.) http://kyhwana.dyndns.org/~kyhwana/decss/From_MPAA_plus_rep ly.txt I got "The Letter" sometime around April, I think. But I havn't heard anything back, since. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: N/A iQA+AwUBOl5SkjjFnKpkvcbxEQKTLgCeN8iQ3+bbPGdGejF0SUNOYLhLlv4AlRO/ wudYniEKkCDE6e3AnVS6Kbc= =ZTOC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Daniel Richards - http://leopard.osoal.org.nz/ PGP Pub key: http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DanielRPubKey.asc Fingerprint: 4F09 7B12 03F9 10BD 688A 1D6F 38C5 9CAA 64BD C6F1 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 08:54:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA13702 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:54:21 -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 IAA13698 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:54:19 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id D2F0D27AF4; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:54:57 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:54:57 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding Message-ID: <20010112145457.B15278@lemuria.org> References: <3A5FAE97.4816.AC7263@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A5FAE97.4816.AC7263@localhost>; from kyhwana@world-net.co.nz on Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 01:25:43AM +1300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 01:25:43AM +1300, kyhwana@world-net.co.nz wrote: > Does anyone know how region coding works, or anywhere that > outlines it? > I mean technically, does it depend on the software player to > recognise it? Or does the firmwire read what region the disc is > when you (insert|play)? it? > Since technically, when you read the disc under linux you arn't > playing it, does it let you even read from the drive if the region > codes don't match? there's 2 options. some drives do region locking, others leave it to the software. the player software ALWAYS does region locking. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 10:05:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA14091 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:05:52 -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 KAA14088 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:05:50 -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 JAA32230 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:08:53 -0600 Received: from zero.monsters.org by zero.monsters.org (8.11.0) id f0CF3dn13321; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:03:48 -0600 Message-Id: <200101121503.f0CF3dn13321@zero.monsters.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:25:43 +1300." <3A5FAE97.4816.AC7263@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:03:39 -0600 From: Stephen L Johnson Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Jan 13, Daniel Richards wrote: > Does anyone know how region coding works, or anywhere that > outlines it? > I mean technically, does it depend on the software player to > recognise it? Or does the firmwire read what region the disc is > when you (insert|play)? it? > Since technically, when you read the disc under linux you arn't > playing it, does it let you even read from the drive if the region > codes don't match? In "officially" licensed DVD players there is a interpreter which runs a "program". This interpreter allows control of many of the operational aspects of the player. Taken altogether, you can think of it as a virtual computer. The program is one of the non .VOB files on the DVD. This is the beastie that implements the region coding. Please take the following with a grain of salt, it is what I have piece together from little bits of information from many sources. I could be totally wrong about the whole thing. Remember the last big press release about the movie companies about how they will be fighting the DVD players that are region free? What they did was to just change a bit of the code in the program on the DVD. The old sequence of region code checking went like this for a Region 1 DVD: Player can you play a region 1 DVD? If yes, go play chapter 1, etc. (Normal DVD playing) otherwise go play chapter 0 (Warning about wrong region codes, et al.) The region free players got around this by answer yes to any region code request. This new validation sequence stymies these players. Player can you play a region _2_ DVD? If yes, go play chapter 0 (Warning about wrong region code, et al.) otherwise Player can you play a region _1_ DVD? If yes, go play chapter 1, etc. (Normal DVD playing) They ask the player if it can play a wrong region code, if the answer is yes, they know it is one of the "hacked" players. But on the other hand, you use a software DVD player when one has the source code available, then anything goes. You can bypass region coding, those annoying FBI warnings and previews you can't fast-forward through, etc. Stephen L Johnson From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 10:51:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA14279 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:51:11 -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 KAA14276 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:51:08 -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, 12 Jan 2001 07:54:06 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:54:03 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/12/2001 07:54:06 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 The simplest way out of this dilemma is to unequivocally state that Companies don't have a vote. HOW can a company vote? How does it make up it's mind...or minds? The notion that a company has the rights of a person under the 14th amendment is one of the extreme aberrations in law. Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more arvard.edu interesting 01/12/01 02:13 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100, Tom wrote: > of course, only companies could vote, not every branch of every > company. So a company owned by individuals is a "real" company, but a company owned by another company is not? what about public companies consisting of thousands or millions of shares? How many would have to be owned by other companies for it to lose its right to vote? For that matter how would its ownership be tracked, given how fast shares change hands? Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone." (The Cluetrain Manifesto) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 11:45:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14671 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:45:53 -0500 Received: from rasputin.trustix.com (rasputin.trustix.com [195.139.104.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14668 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:45:50 -0500 Received: from trustix.com (singsing.trustix.com [195.139.105.100]) by rasputin.trustix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146B661DB2 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:48:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A5F3567.7D3597CC@trustix.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:48:39 +0100 From: Lars Gaarden Organization: Trustix AS X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-ac3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Region Coding References: <3A5FAE97.4816.AC7263@localhost> <20010112145457.B15278@lemuria.org> 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 Tom wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 01:25:43AM +1300, kyhwana@world-net.co.nz wrote: > > Does anyone know how region coding works, or anywhere that > > outlines it? > > I mean technically, does it depend on the software player to > > recognise it? Or does the firmwire read what region the disc is > > when you (insert|play)? it? > > Since technically, when you read the disc under linux you arn't > > playing it, does it let you even read from the drive if the region > > codes don't match? > > there's 2 options. some drives do region locking, others leave it to > the software. the player software ALWAYS does region locking. RPC1 players do not do region locking. With RPC1 players, the region locking is only implemented in the DVD player software. According to the license, DVD-ROM manufacturers were not allowed to produce RPC1 players after Jan 1 2000 (which is why it was hard to get hold of DVD-ROM players in early 2000.) RPC2 hardware is region locked, and can only change regions 5 times. That is, the firmware on the player will refuse to play a region 1 DVD if it is set to region 2. The DVD player software is also region locked. The region locking is not really a part of CSS, it is a requirement in the license that any DVD manufacturer has to sign with DVDCCA to get player keys and the specification for CSS decryption. I'm not certain about copying in Linux, but I think it goes like this: RPC1 hardware - will allow you to copy the .VOBs that contain the movie. It won't do you any good, though, since the VOBs are scrambled and you need a valid player key to do a 'handshake' with the drive to get at the movie key. RPC2 hardware - will also allow you to copy the .VOBs. Even if you have a player key, the handshake will fail if the DVD is not in the region set in the DVD-ROM firmware. -- LarsG From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 20:22:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA17682 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:22:53 -0500 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA17679 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:22:51 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld5h6.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.150.38]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA09981 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:25:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A5FAD45.29BF04AF@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:20:06 -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] Is a public resource considered chattel? 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 Are the packets on the internet considered roughly the same as the public airwaves? (I am guessing that they are from the recent webcast rulings) If so, then what is the deal with the two recent cases about unauthorized use of web resources? The eBay ruling last year and the more recent injunction against Verio both rely on the "trespass to chattels" principle to demonstrate harm. The NYT article about it gave this definition: "Trespass to chattels occurs when there is an intentional and unauthorized interference with the personal property of another that causes the victim to suffer a degree of harm." The question I have, then, is this: Does a webserver that is voluntarily connected to the public internet still constitute chattel. It seems to me that it's a strange argument to claim that someone using the public webserver (even heavily) is a harm to personal property. Isn't that like a local radio station claiming that I am harming them if I use an obscene number of radio receivers? In the cases mentioned, less than 2% server load was claimed. I'm sure that, at some point, the load of a bunch of radios might could be measured (I wonder what is the impedance of all of the radio receivers in my city?) and the station owner might sue me for trespass to chattels. I'm beginning to form the opinion that anything connected to the internet is a donation to the public, kind of like, "Here, have a beer." mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 12 21:42:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA18062 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:42:06 -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 VAA18059 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:42:04 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id VAA24893 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-sfp-vty48.as.wcom.net [216.192.35.48]) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id VAA24872 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:44:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: 2RE: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:45:42 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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) In-Reply-To: <01011120131900.22284@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Disposition-Notification-To: "Juergen + Barbara" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Well, there are sure a few million PCs with Windows 9x and that $1 figure. However, look at the servers (also serveral millions of them), then you are talking Windows NT; and, depending of the licenses (number of CPUs, number of con-current users, memory, etc., etc.) this figure can then be in the $ 500, even $ 2000 to 12000 neighborhood! Often Microsoft (and now other companies) are given something for free so that they have a market for other products; e.g., InternetExplorer working best with their Webservers and Webdesigner tools, Windows9x to work best with WindowsNT servers, Exchange, etc. *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of D. C. Sessions Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Januar 2001 19:13 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" On Thursday 11 January 2001 19:44, Juergen + Barbara wrote: (...) # So the $1 (OEM license) vs the $85 (full Microsoft license) do not quite compare. What really impresses me is that 40% of Microsoft's ~$15 billion annual revenues comes from OS sales, with the vast majority being OEM sales. Which means that they must be selling about six billion copies a year, or one per year for every man, woman, and child on Earth. That, or the $1/copy is slightly under the reality. (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 13 05:23:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA19599 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:23:14 -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 FAA19596 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:23:11 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd950063e.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.62]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D5A27AC5 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:23:43 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3D85C175182; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:23:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:23:39 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is a public resource considered chattel? Message-ID: <20010113112338.B21689@lemuria.org> References: <3A5FAD45.29BF04AF@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: <3A5FAD45.29BF04AF@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:20:06PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:20:06PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > I'm beginning to form the opinion that anything connected to the > internet is a donation to the public, kind of like, "Here, have a beer." that's the way everyone with half a brain sees it. unfortunately, the average IQ on the net has been dropping ever since "e-commerce" entered the picture. the the companies, the net is just another source of revenue. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 13 06:26:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA19778 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:26:44 -0500 Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.28]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA19775 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:26:40 -0500 Received: from swbell.net ([64.123.43.81]) by mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G7200HXBXR04X@mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:33:00 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:31:09 -0600 From: Zach Kenyon Subject: Re: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <3A5FBDED.D7C8ACE9@swbell.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD EBM-Compaq (Win95; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Juergen + Barbara wrote: > > don't get you hopes too high here; and, BTW, get the facts straight: > > 3) and: goto windowsupdate.microsoft.com, and you get any (major) bugfixes > automagically, for free! Including support releases; > e.g., Office 2000 support patch SR1a some 52MB (about 8 min download time on my DSL > connection); again, for free! K Phil already touched on the fact that most folks only have 56k or less. I'd like to add to that the fact that the vast majority of folks in the UK pay for this 56k line *by the minute* in phone charge access. 52MB / 56 kbps == 52,000 kb / 56 kbps # multiply the megs by 100 to get kb 52,000 kb / 5.6 kbps # convert kiloBITS to kiloBYTES # (now we've the same unit of measure) 9285.71 seconds # several devimal places deleted 9285.71 / 60 # seconds in a minute ----------------------------------------------------------- 154.76 minutes * $0.10 USD #multiply times a dime a minute #(unsure on rates) $15.48 USD Doesn't sound free to me. Also add in the fact that I assume the highest possible sustained throughput rate. It will vary, meaning it will cost more. Then there's the possibility that the transfer might abort for some reason meaning you get to start over. Not to mention the fact that this *patch* just cost you two and a half hours of your life. What's that worth? Oh, and tying up the phone line, and line noise, and a half dozen other things that Make Dial-Up Suck(tm). So, say at least twenty bucks USD plus two hours of you life for a free patch to problems that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Free, indeed. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 13 10:08:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA20892 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:08:31 -0500 Received: from mail.eroletter.de ([212.112.207.7]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA20889; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:08:26 -0500 Received: from sex-tv-now.de (p3EE1DAC7.dip.t-dialin.net [62.225.218.199]) by mail.eroletter.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08980; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:26:13 +0100 Message-ID: <3A1665FF.F62949E2@sex-tv-now.de> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:49:06 +0200 From: Jim Dawson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [de] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dvd-discuss] Newsletter www.cam2010.de To: jim@sex-tv-now.de Subject: [dvd-discuss] Incredible! 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 Heute wollen wir Sie kurz über unsere die Erweiterung unseres Angebotes unterrichten. Sie finden absofort auch die LisaCam MichelleCam AnnaCam und die TracyCam exklusiv bei uns mit vielen Vorschaubildern in gewohnter Qualität. Klicken Sie hier um direkt zu unserem umfangreichen Unterhaltungsprogramm zu gelangen. Stellvertretend für Eure Mädels der cam2010-Crew Lisa Michelle Anna tracey Carina Vicky Jenny Pia Um diesen Newsletter in Zukunft nicht mehr zu erhalten schicken Sie bitte eine leere Mail an folgende Adresse: unsubscribe@sex-tv-now.de From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 13 11:01:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA21407 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:01:38 -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 LAA21404 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:01:33 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA26018 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:04:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:04:40 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is a public resource considered chattel? In-Reply-To: <20010113112338.B21689@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 Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Tom wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:20:06PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > > I'm beginning to form the opinion that anything connected to the > > internet is a donation to the public, kind of like, "Here, have a beer." > > that's the way everyone with half a brain sees it. unfortunately, the > average IQ on the net has been dropping ever since "e-commerce" entered > the picture. > > the the companies, the net is just another source of revenue. > Several counterpoints to your argument exist. Bandwidth is ultimately not free. Many entities are charged elastic rates based on amount of traffic. Servers are not cheep either. Although Linux does help, there are limit to what an older machine can do. There is also an argument against spam base on depletion of hard disk space on a privately owned machine. Several of the anti-cracking statutes are based on this conception -- although the database described in the article is a public service, andd cracking ultimately involve accessing materials and services explicitly marked private/non-public. There is a paralel between this action and the "recent" Celera database fiasco. It used to be that to publish scientific data was to actually have it printed in the relevent journals. This raised the page count of the journals involved, and as more sequences were obtained, editors began to accept that database deposition could reasonably substitute for textual substitution-- primarily because there were as few restrictions placed on the electronic data as would occur with textual publication in _Science_, _Nature_ or like journals. In other words, the journal articles simply aquired a freely available online component. But instead of submitting their data to an online depository, Celera kept the data for its own "public" servers, and attached a "no commercial" restriction to this database. Tecnically, this would not ordinarily constitute "scientific publication." Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 13 11:08:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA21535 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:08:54 -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 LAA21532 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:08:52 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3EE2D5FA.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.250]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160CF27AF5 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:09:31 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A9FA8175182; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:09:25 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:09:25 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Newsletter www.cam2010.de Message-ID: <20010113170924.A23625@lemuria.org> References: <3A1665FF.F62949E2@sex-tv-now.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A1665FF.F62949E2@sex-tv-now.de>; from jim@sex-tv-now.de on Wed, May 12, 1999 at 01:49:06PM +0200 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 01:49:06PM +0200, Jim Dawson wrote: > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Newsletter www.cam2010.de > To: jim@sex-tv-now.de > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Incredible! is the list address on the web for harvesters, or is someone subscribing the list to spammers? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 13 11:25:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA21669 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:25:59 -0500 Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA21665 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:25:53 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38lc550.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.20.160]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA31406 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:28:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A60810E.13EBE5E4@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:23:43 -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] Is a public resource considered chattel? 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'm beginning to form the opinion that anything connected to the > > > internet is a donation to the public, kind of like, "Here, have a beer." > > > > that's the way everyone with half a brain sees it. unfortunately, the > > average IQ on the net has been dropping ever since "e-commerce" entered > > the picture. > > > > the the companies, the net is just another source of revenue. > > > > Several counterpoints to your argument exist. > > Bandwidth is ultimately not free. Many entities are charged elastic rates > based on amount of traffic. Servers are not cheep either. Although Linux > does help, there are limit to what an older machine can do. > There is also an argument against spam base on depletion of hard disk > space on a privately owned machine. > The cost of bandwidth is shared by everyone, something like carpoolling. A disagreement on how the carpool is run is eventually handled with a "fine, then don't ride with me" sort of discussion. If someone is unhappy with what happens with their "/pub" directory then they don't have to ride in the carpool. I guess I should look into how carpool disputes are handled by the courts. I may be way offbase here, but it just seems inconsistent to complain about what happens to resources made public by choice. ickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 13 11:29:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA21788 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:29:18 -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 LAA21785 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:29:16 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3EE2D5FA.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.250]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E7327AF5 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:29:55 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7DA0D175182; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:29:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:29:51 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is a public resource considered chattel? Message-ID: <20010113172950.B23625@lemuria.org> References: <20010113112338.B21689@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 jerwin@osf1.gmu.edu on Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 11:04:40AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 11:04:40AM -0500, Jeremy A Erwin wrote: > Several counterpoints to your argument exist. > > Bandwidth is ultimately not free. Many entities are charged elastic rates > based on amount of traffic. Servers are not cheep either. Although Linux > does help, there are limit to what an older machine can do. > There is also an argument against spam base on depletion of hard disk > space on a privately owned machine. yes, there is definitely a point in abusing my machine for your commercial purposes. however, when I put a webserver on the internet, I'll just have to accept that fact that it may get visited. it may be indexed by search engines. some users may visit it every day or even every hour. someone may write a script to grab the latest headlines from my site. if you don't like scenarios like that, stay off the net instead of taking people to court because they read only the headlines and not your ad banners. much like DVD: I payed for the movie, so I have every right to not be forced into watching ads. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 13 22:50:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA24645 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:50:04 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f126.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.126]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA24642 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:50:02 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:52:40 -0800 Received: from 24.180.238.193 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:52:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.180.238.193] From: "Harold Eaton" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:52:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2001 03:52:40.0037 (UTC) FILETIME=[70D11950:01C07DDD] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > If I said we should treat "Mom, buy me a book" as a machine would you >think of > > it was absurd? How about "Mom, count to ten"? > >what if "mom" is the name of your voice-recognizing computer? This helps to illustrate Bryan's point. Suppose that Jack Valenti's computer is named "mom". You would conclude that the message that Bryan wrote is now conduct, or at least is this hybrid thing you're talking about. But that is metaphysical nonsense - whatever machines may exist at various times and places does not in any way alter the fundmental nature of language. Nature invented "machines" (i.e. humans) that can "execute" speech long, long ago. Computers do virtually nothing to change the situation. There is still such a thing as pure speech and the page on 2600.com's website was a very clear example of just that. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 14 00:07:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA24934 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:07:10 -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 AAA24931 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:07:08 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id AAA11671 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:09:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from LocalHost (sfr-tgn-sfn-vty69.as.wcom.net [216.192.33.69]) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id AAA11658 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:09:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:10:48 -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: <3A5FBDED.D7C8ACE9@swbell.net> 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 In Germany ADSL is also heavily promoted; with a similar price figure as in the USA. Regarding the download updates, you can also order a CDrom (around 9 to 15); basically reimbursement of the shipping and handling fee. I have also seen critical patches sent for free, too, by various venders. Again, it was the argument that one had t buy a new OS version to get corrections; and that is not true. *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Zach Kenyon Sent: Freitag, 12. Januar 2001 18:31 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" Juergen + Barbara wrote: > > don't get you hopes too high here; and, BTW, get the facts straight: > > 3) and: goto windowsupdate.microsoft.com, and you get any (major) bugfixes > automagically, for free! Including support releases; > e.g., Office 2000 support patch SR1a some 52MB (about 8 min download time on my DSL > connection); again, for free! K Phil already touched on the fact that most folks only have 56k or less. I'd like to add to that the fact that the vast majority of folks in the UK pay for this 56k line *by the minute* in phone charge access. 52MB / 56 kbps == 52,000 kb / 56 kbps # multiply the megs by 100 to get kb 52,000 kb / 5.6 kbps # convert kiloBITS to kiloBYTES # (now we've the same unit of measure) 9285.71 seconds # several devimal places deleted 9285.71 / 60 # seconds in a minute ----------------------------------------------------------- 154.76 minutes * $0.10 USD #multiply times a dime a minute #(unsure on rates) $15.48 USD Doesn't sound free to me. Also add in the fact that I assume the highest possible sustained throughput rate. It will vary, meaning it will cost more. Then there's the possibility that the transfer might abort for some reason meaning you get to start over. Not to mention the fact that this *patch* just cost you two and a half hours of your life. What's that worth? Oh, and tying up the phone line, and line noise, and a half dozen other things that Make Dial-Up Suck(tm). So, say at least twenty bucks USD plus two hours of you life for a free patch to problems that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Free, indeed. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 14 01:23:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA25142 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:23:23 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA25139 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:23:21 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [163.228.19.198]) by tneu.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067ED231 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:30:00 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:29:59 -0600 (CST) From: tim To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting In-Reply-To: <20010112110835.C20323@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, 12 Jan 2001, Sham Gardner wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100, Tom wrote: > > of course, only companies could vote, not every branch of every > > company. > > So a company owned by individuals is a "real" company, but a company owned > by another company is not? what about public companies consisting of > thousands or millions of shares? How many would have to be owned by other > companies for it to lose its right to vote? For that matter how would its > ownership be tracked, given how fast shares change hands? Not to mention that having companies "vote" is only a short step away from having companies influence the voting employees. At least now, companies don't have an "official" vote, so there is not a "right" person to vote for as far as your company is concerned. I suppose the universe could be more foobared than I make it out to be, but I think my vote is still my vote. (at least my employer didn't make any voting suggestions). -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:07:12 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3EE2D5CF.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.207]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFF427B03 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:07:40 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 17616175182; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:07:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:07:37 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Things get a bit more interesting Message-ID: <20010114120736.B32126@lemuria.org> References: <20010112110835.C20323@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: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 06:29:59PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 06:29:59PM -0600, tim wrote: > At least now, companies don't have an "official" vote, which is a good excuse to buy a couple "inofficial" ones. give them one vote and tell them to stick with it. the penalty for any kind of bribery (and "campaign contributions" is exactly that) should be severe - say, disbanding of the company at 3rd violation. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 14 14:12:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27494 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:12:42 -0500 Received: from phasr2011.cscext.cz ([194.228.112.161]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA27491 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:12:39 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:12:39 -0500 From: andkais77@gmx.net Message-Id: <200101141912.OAA27491@eon.law.harvard.edu> Received: from susi (pD9000229.dip.t-dialin.net [217.0.2.41]) by phasr2011.cscext.cz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id ZZMABSAF; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:20:40 +0100 To: andkais77@gmx.net Subject: [dvd-discuss] ++++++Newsletter+++++++ 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 Hi Kalle! Mal wieder ein paar Surftips für Dich. Also wenn Du mich fragst die besten Maedels, 20 Studios mit Livebild und Chat im Netz findest Du unter http://www.lifegirl.de oder http://www.ero-channel.de oder http://www.stripline.de die beste Singleseite ist http://www.zweiherzen.de die verliebtesten Lesben sind unter http://www.lesbenhaus.de zu finden. Also Kalle nix wie hin. PS: Kannst mir ja nächsten Freitag von deinen tollen Erfahrungen berichten. --------------------------------------------------------------- unregistrierte Demoversion http://www.stripline.de/download/psmail.exe Referenz zu http://www.stripline.de Referenz zu http://www.selfproducer.de co. 2000 --------------------------------------------------------------- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 14 14:40:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27786 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:40:33 -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 OAA27770 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:37:37 -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 OAA19906 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:40:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010114142633.01f8af00@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:40:46 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Administrivia to deal with SPAM (was Re: [dvd-discuss] Newsletter www.cam2010.de) In-Reply-To: <20010113170924.A23625@lemuria.org> References: <3A1665FF.F62949E2@sex-tv-now.de> <3A1665FF.F62949E2@sex-tv-now.de> 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 Because the list seems to have become a ripe target for spammers lately, I've changed the list policy to accept messages only from dvd-discuss subscribers. If you wish to post from an address other than the one subscribed, I have set up a separate list to hold additional addresses -- dvd-post. To post from an alternate address, email majordomo@eon to subscribe the alternate address to dvd-post. (In the body of a message from that address: subscribe dvd-post.) (I'll do it if I catch legitimate messages bouncing, but I may not get to it immediately). Hope this cuts down on the "newsletters" and other junk, and isn't too much of a nuisance for genuine posters. --Wendy At 05:09 PM 01/13/2001 +0100, Tom wrote: >On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 01:49:06PM +0200, Jim Dawson wrote: > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Newsletter www.cam2010.de > > To: jim@sex-tv-now.de > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Incredible! > >is the list address on the web for harvesters, or is someone >subscribing the list to spammers? --- 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 Mon Jan 15 09:21:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA01898 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:21:51 -0500 Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA01876 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:13:55 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA23585 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:14:19 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAASAaGcU; Mon Jan 15 07:14:15 2001 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 HAA30045 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:16:21 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:16:21 -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: 2RE: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01011507162101.23094@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 Friday 12 January 2001 19:45, you wrote: # Well, there are sure a few million PCs with Windows 9x and that $1 figure. # # However, look at the servers (also serveral millions of them), then you are talking Windows NT; and, depending of the licenses # (number of CPUs, number of con-current users, memory, etc., etc.) this figure can then be in the $500, even $ 2000 to 12000 # neighborhood! No, I'm talking about the bread-and-butter Win9x license. Which, according to several external sources, is no cheaper than the DOS license which was running around $40 at the time when Microsoft ran Digital Research out of business. OEM preload licenses have always been Microsoft's mainstay, and server licensing has only recently been an issue. There is simply no reason why MS would price Windows at what amounts to free when they have the OEMs up against the wall. Put another way, this is simply not a credible assertion. Unless, of course, you can provide a verifiable instance of such a $1 OEM license? # -----Original Message----- # From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu # [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of D. C. Sessions # Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Januar 2001 19:13 # To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu # Subject: Re: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap # license" # # # # On Thursday 11 January 2001 19:44, Juergen + Barbara wrote: # (...) # # So the $1 (OEM license) vs the $85 (full Microsoft license) do not quite compare. # # What really impresses me is that 40% of Microsoft's ~$15 billion annual revenues comes # from OS sales, with the vast majority being OEM sales. Which means that they must be # selling about six billion copies a year, or one per year for every man, woman, and child # on Earth. # # That, or the $1/copy is slightly under the reality. # (...) -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 10:24:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02636 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:24:49 -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 KAA02633 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:24:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA30615 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:27:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:27:56 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and possible censorship... 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 An interesting article was published in Monday's (15 Jan 2001) New York Times (page C2), http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/technology/15TUNE.html Group Says It Beat Music Security but Can't Reveal How Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 11:08:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02897 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:08:24 -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 LAA02894 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:08:17 -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, 15 Jan 2001 08:11:24 -0800 Subject: Re: 2RE: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:11:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/15/2001 08:11:23 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 Or as observed in the Microsoft Anti-Trust action, they give it away free to cripple or destroy a perceived rival. "Juergen + Barbara" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: 2RE: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling arvard.edu books under a "shrink-wrap license" 01/12/01 06:47 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Well, there are sure a few million PCs with Windows 9x and that $1 figure. However, look at the servers (also serveral millions of them), then you are talking Windows NT; and, depending of the licenses (number of CPUs, number of con-current users, memory, etc., etc.) this figure can then be in the $ 500, even $ 2000 to 12000 neighborhood! Often Microsoft (and now other companies) are given something for free so that they have a market for other products; e.g., InternetExplorer working best with their Webservers and Webdesigner tools, Windows9x to work best with WindowsNT servers, Exchange, etc. *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of D. C. Sessions Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Januar 2001 19:13 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" On Thursday 11 January 2001 19:44, Juergen + Barbara wrote: (...) # So the $1 (OEM license) vs the $85 (full Microsoft license) do not quite compare. What really impresses me is that 40% of Microsoft's ~$15 billion annual revenues comes from OS sales, with the vast majority being OEM sales. Which means that they must be selling about six billion copies a year, or one per year for every man, woman, and child on Earth. That, or the $1/copy is slightly under the reality. (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 11:48:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03238 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:48:46 -0500 Received: from zoom1.telepath.com (zoom1.telepath.com [216.14.10.10]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03234 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:48:44 -0500 Received: from [216.14.0.205] (zoom0-205.telepath.com [216.14.0.205]) by zoom1.telepath.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA24802 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:51:56 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <200101151651.KAA24802@zoom1.telepath.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:50:35 -0600 Subject: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and possible censorship... From: "Timothy Phillips" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 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 Here's an alternative link for the NYT article. http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/technology/15TUNE.html Here's an Inside.com article: http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=20576&pod_id=9 Both these articles may become restricted-access in the future, so read them while you can. Tim Phillips From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 12:06:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA03454 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:06:05 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA03451 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:06:02 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id JAA13059 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:09:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma012443; Mon, 15 Jan 01 09:08:16 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:09:20 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05025; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:08:11 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and possiblecensorship... Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:16:35 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01c07f16$e9946b00$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <200101151651.KAA24802@zoom1.telepath.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 167DF14A1094842-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This would seem to give Prof. Felton et. al. "standing" to challenge the DMCA directly on 1st Amendment grounds as it clearly (based on the advice of competent counsel) constitutes "prior restraint" and "content based" restrictions. Also, as it interferes with the academic process isn't this also ground for a direct challenge to the statute that it violates the "promote progress" language of the copyright clause? IANAL -- those who are, comments? John Zulauf private netizen > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Timothy > Phillips > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:51 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and > possiblecensorship... > > > Here's an alternative link for the NYT article. > > http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/technology/15TUNE.html > > > Here's an Inside.com article: > > http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=20576&pod_id=9 > > Both these articles may become restricted-access in the > future, so read them while you can. > > Tim Phillips > > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 12:39:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04285 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:39:20 -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 MAA04282 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:39:19 -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 MAA10180 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:42:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010115121733.00ab8b18@pop.bellatlantic.net> X-Sender: wseltzer@pop.bellatlantic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:42:31 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and possiblecensorship... In-Reply-To: <000f01c07f16$e9946b00$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> References: <200101151651.KAA24802@zoom1.telepath.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 10:16 AM 01/15/2001 -0700, John Zulauf wrote: >This would seem to give Prof. Felton et. al. "standing" to challenge the >DMCA directly on 1st Amendment grounds as it clearly (based on the advice of >competent counsel) constitutes "prior restraint" and "content based" >restrictions. Also, as it interferes with the academic process isn't this >also ground for a direct challenge to the statute that it violates the >"promote progress" language of the copyright clause? > >IANAL -- those who are, comments? I wonder if he's been approached as a possible plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action... If an academic group can't even comment on the security or insecurity of copyright protection schemes with detailed descriptions allowing others to validate their claims, it sure looks to me like a slap across the face of the First Amendment. The DMCA chills Felten's group from publishing details of his successful attacks on the SDMI watermarks, but would not stop publication of unsuccessful attempts. It lets them paint half a picture -- the half the copyright industries want to see. As for the "promote progress" clause, I think it's been interpreted as not carrying any enforceable meaning. But even if that's the case and if the DMCA was passed under Commerce power, it's powerful to note that situations like these are a direct affront to the stated purposes of copyright. --Wendy >John Zulauf >private netizen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Timothy > > Phillips > > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:51 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and > > possiblecensorship... > > > > > > Here's an alternative link for the NYT article. > > > > http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/technology/15TUNE.html > > > > > > Here's an Inside.com article: > > > > http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=20576&pod_id=9 > > > > Both these articles may become restricted-access in the > > future, so read them while you can. > > > > Tim Phillips > > --- 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 Mon Jan 15 13:20:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04734 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:20:52 -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 NAA04731 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:20:50 -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, 15 Jan 2001 10:23:59 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and possiblecensorship... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:23:55 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/15/2001 10:23:58 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 Does anybody note that fact the the DMCA already has had a chilling effect upon free speech? 2 years ago, Felten probably wouldn't have even bothered consulting with an attorney. Today he has to incur the expense and spend the time. Self imposed censorship is the most incidious aspect of the DMCA. I am having a hard time conceiving how ANYTHING that he may say justifies any "prior restraint". What sorts of things does "prior restraint" cover? - Military secrets, classified information, how to make nuclear weapons...yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. The economic benefits to businesses hardly qualifies. Wendy Seltzer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec arvard.edu 1201 et seq, and possiblecensorship... 01/15/01 09:44 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 10:16 AM 01/15/2001 -0700, John Zulauf wrote: >This would seem to give Prof. Felton et. al. "standing" to challenge the >DMCA directly on 1st Amendment grounds as it clearly (based on the advice of >competent counsel) constitutes "prior restraint" and "content based" >restrictions. Also, as it interferes with the academic process isn't this >also ground for a direct challenge to the statute that it violates the >"promote progress" language of the copyright clause? > >IANAL -- those who are, comments? I wonder if he's been approached as a possible plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action... If an academic group can't even comment on the security or insecurity of copyright protection schemes with detailed descriptions allowing others to validate their claims, it sure looks to me like a slap across the face of the First Amendment. The DMCA chills Felten's group from publishing details of his successful attacks on the SDMI watermarks, but would not stop publication of unsuccessful attempts. It lets them paint half a picture -- the half the copyright industries want to see. As for the "promote progress" clause, I think it's been interpreted as not carrying any enforceable meaning. But even if that's the case and if the DMCA was passed under Commerce power, it's powerful to note that situations like these are a direct affront to the stated purposes of copyright. --Wendy >John Zulauf >private netizen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Timothy > > Phillips > > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:51 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and > > possiblecensorship... > > > > > > Here's an alternative link for the NYT article. > > > > http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/technology/15TUNE.html > > > > > > Here's an Inside.com article: > > > > http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=20576&pod_id=9 > > > > Both these articles may become restricted-access in the > > future, so read them while you can. > > > > Tim Phillips > > --- 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 Mon Jan 15 15:01:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05800 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:01:33 -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 PAA05784 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:01:32 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00445; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:04:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:04:44 -0500 From: Jim Bauer Message-Id: <200101152004.PAA00445@emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and possiblecensorship... Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >Does anybody note that fact the the DMCA already has had a chilling effect >upon free speech? 2 years ago, Felten probably wouldn't have even bothered >consulting with an attorney. Today he has to incur the expense and spend >the time. Self imposed censorship is the most incidious aspect of the DMCA. It is not self imposed. That would be choice. This is censorship imposed via fear of legal liability of disclosing facts to the public. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 15:39:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06215 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:39:28 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [209.98.6.48]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA06212 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:39:25 -0500 Received: from tneu.visi.com (tneu.visi.com [163.228.19.198]) by tneu.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F462381 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:46:15 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:46:15 -0600 (CST) From: tim To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno In-Reply-To: <3A494A04.6841B2C3@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 Any ruling in Eldred v. Reno yet? It's been quite a while... How long do these things normally take? -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:50:26 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inig5d.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.64.173]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22473 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:53:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101152153.QAA22473@smtp6.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:46:03 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Censor In-Reply-To: References: <3A494A04.6841B2C3@mindspring.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 Amy Harmon writes in today's NY Times about the reluctance of researchers to publish results of a crack of Secure Digital copyright protection (music watermarking) due to legal advice that to do so would risk violating the DMCA. The researchers are those at Princeton, Rice and Xerox Research who reported removal of the watermarking late last year and promised to publish results later. Ms. Harmon cites Judge Kaplan's DeCSS decision as a basis of the legal advice to not do so. One of the researchers, Ed Felten, at Princteon, testified for 2600 at the NY trial. He reported on the decision to withhold publication at a conference last week in DC. Harmon writes: "Under DMCA, civil statuatory damages for providing means to gain access to a piece of copyrighted material secured by computer code ragne from $200 to $2500. Criminal penalties include fines as much as $1 million or 10 years in jail for repeat offenses." Cryptome welcomes for publication the team's research if an anonymous wishes to pass it along. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 17:24:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07766 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:24:53 -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 RAA07763 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:24:50 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5eb.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.235]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7023027AC5 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:25:19 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BF3A1175182; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:25:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:25:18 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Censor Message-ID: <20010115232518.A1762@lemuria.org> References: <3A494A04.6841B2C3@mindspring.com> <200101152153.QAA22473@smtp6.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: <200101152153.QAA22473@smtp6.mindspring.com>; from jya@pipeline.com on Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:46:03PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:46:03PM -0500, John Young wrote: > Cryptome welcomes for publication the team's research > if an anonymous wishes to pass it along. as does lemuria.org, which resides outside US jurisdiction. guess the time for data havens is rapidly approaching. not too long ago, taxes were the main argument. security from litigation should be on the marketing list of arguments of those offshore companies soon. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 17:30:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07901 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:30:33 -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 RAA07898 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:30:30 -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, 15 Jan 2001 14:33:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, and possiblecensorship... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:33:31 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/15/2001 02:33:31 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 Yes and It's a very nice depressing thought. I can remember the discussions in academia in the early 80s when an NSA employee wrote a letter stating that public disclosure of public key encryption algorithms should be discouraged. (That was merely his opinion and did not reflect his employer-at least that's what NSA stated.). What the DMCA promises to do is far worse. Few researchers have the resources to battle a company in court. Futhermore, during their publish or perish phase, few universities will back them or give them tenure if they haven't been publishing enough because they have to be spending time dealing with litigation. Maybe researchers will need to post their results encrypted with only the trusted getting the keys....reminds me of what the "founding fathers" did during the American Revolution and when they were over in France (Jefferson had a patent on an encryption device that actually was pretty much used until the rotor machines were invented in the 20s). Jim Bauer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec arvard.edu 1201 et seq, and possiblecensorship... 01/15/01 12:07 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >Does anybody note that fact the the DMCA already has had a chilling effect >upon free speech? 2 years ago, Felten probably wouldn't have even bothered >consulting with an attorney. Today he has to incur the expense and spend >the time. Self imposed censorship is the most incidious aspect of the DMCA. It is not self imposed. That would be choice. This is censorship imposed via fear of legal liability of disclosing facts to the public. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 17:31:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07909 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:31:28 -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 RAA07906 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:31:21 -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; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:34:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Censor To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:34:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/15/2001 02:34:26 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 Maybe the UN should establish "litigation free zones" in the world Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Censor 01/15/01 02:30 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:46:03PM -0500, John Young wrote: > Cryptome welcomes for publication the team's research > if an anonymous wishes to pass it along. as does lemuria.org, which resides outside US jurisdiction. guess the time for data havens is rapidly approaching. not too long ago, taxes were the main argument. security from litigation should be on the marketing list of arguments of those offshore companies soon. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 17:38:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA08074 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:38:43 -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 RAA08071 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:38:39 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5eb.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.235]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8C127AD6 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:39:16 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3BB4B175182; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:39:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:39:17 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Censor Message-ID: <20010115233916.D1762@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 02:34:26PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 02:34:26PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Maybe the UN should establish "litigation free zones" in the world cyberspace should be the first. but I'd be betting 100:1 that there will a court on either moon or mars before we have the first lawyer-free zone on the planet. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 19:06:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA08270 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:06:42 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA08267 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:06:39 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id QAA22216 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:09:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma021964; Mon, 15 Jan 01 16:08:37 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:09:43 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26462; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:08:37 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, andpossiblecensorship... Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:16:55 -0700 Message-ID: <002e01c07f51$a1f2db20$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 167D4ECC1163558-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Michael.A.Rolenz Monday, January 15, 2001 11:24 AM > I am having a hard time conceiving how ANYTHING that he may say > justifies > any "prior restraint". What sorts of things does "prior > restraint" cover? - > Military secrets, classified information, how to make nuclear > weapons...yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. The economic benefits to > businesses hardly qualifies. The Pentagon Papers weren't subject to prior restraint -- how could a business interests be held higher that national security ratings (secret, top secret, et. al.). "The more you tighten your grip, more systems with slip through your fingers" -- Princess Leia Organa Anybody know where the thermal port on the DMCA Death Star is? John Zulauf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 15 22:06:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08956 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:06:14 -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 WAA08953 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:06:12 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id WAA23863 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:08:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from LocalHost (sfr-tgn-yyj-vty67.as.wcom.net [216.192.46.67]) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id WAA23855 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:08:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: 6RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:10:03 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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) In-Reply-To: <01011507162101.23094@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Disposition-Notification-To: "Juergen + Barbara" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu reliable source -- being me when I was technical support and product manager working for a PC manufacturer in San Jose, 1996 - 1998. Win 9x $1, Win NT (workstation) $ 110 (extra). We had actually to fight not to pay MS when we selling the PCs (built to customer order) with other, non-MS, OS: Netware, SCO OpenServer, SCO UnixWare, etc. (they later dropped that plan, getting too much resistance fom other PC manufacturers, too.) MS also earns from OS upgrades (Windows 3.x to Windows 95 to Windows 98 to Windows ME, ...), I don't know the ratio Windows OEM version sold vs. Windows retail, may be equal shares. Again, most money is made in the server market (hardware and software). Also, while Novell Netware clients are basically free, Novell Netware server costs. Ditto: SCO OpenServer and SCO UnixWare -- these animals are free for non-commercial, i.e., private use (http://www.sco.com/offers/license.html) -- aside from some fee for the media, sometimes you can download them buggers, though. The marginal fee ($1 or, say, $45 I see Windows ME offered since it came out) covers the media, a (smaller) handbook, etc. Support either through OEM partner or Micrsosoft (retail version only). Think about the zillions of PCs out, worldwide... Giving it away to "criple the competitors"? Only for the unequipped eye: as I said before, you get OS basically for free, MS, or not. BeOS, Linux, MacOS, ... marginal fees if you not opt to download godzilla bytes ( ;-) ). Cheers, jm. -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of D. C. Sessions Sent: Montag, 15. Januar 2001 06:16 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: 2RE: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" (...) No, I'm talking about the bread-and-butter Win9x license. Which, according to several external sources, is no cheaper than the DOS license which was running around $40 at the time when Microsoft ran Digital Research out of business. OEM preload licenses have always been Microsoft's mainstay, and server licensing has only recently been an issue. There is simply no reason why MS would price Windows at what amounts to free when they have the OEMs up against the wall. Put another way, this is simply not a credible assertion. Unless, of course, you can provide a verifiable instance of such a $1 OEM license? (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 16 10:44:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA12453 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:44:25 -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 KAA12449 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:44:18 -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; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:47:26 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Censor To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:47:24 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/16/2001 07:47:24 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 Cyberspace was almost the first.... Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA Censor 01/15/01 02:44 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 02:34:26PM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Maybe the UN should establish "litigation free zones" in the world cyberspace should be the first. but I'd be betting 100:1 that there will a court on either moon or mars before we have the first lawyer-free zone on the planet. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 16 10:48:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA12561 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:48:47 -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 KAA12557 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:48:44 -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; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:51:56 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq,andpossiblecensorship... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:51:53 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/16/2001 07:51:54 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 Yes I was thinking of the Pentagon Papers too (and that was a case where improper use of "national security" was involved.)...but how can business interests be place higher than that or the First Amemdment. "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec arvard.edu 1201 et seq,andpossiblecensorship... 01/15/01 04:12 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz Monday, January 15, 2001 11:24 AM > I am having a hard time conceiving how ANYTHING that he may say > justifies > any "prior restraint". What sorts of things does "prior > restraint" cover? - > Military secrets, classified information, how to make nuclear > weapons...yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. The economic benefits to > businesses hardly qualifies. The Pentagon Papers weren't subject to prior restraint -- how could a business interests be held higher that national security ratings (secret, top secret, et. al.). "The more you tighten your grip, more systems with slip through your fingers" -- Princess Leia Organa Anybody know where the thermal port on the DMCA Death Star is? John Zulauf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 16 10:55:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA12656 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:55:23 -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 KAA12653 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:55:22 -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; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:58:31 -0800 Subject: Re: 6RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:58:30 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/16/2001 07:58:30 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 No OS = NO computer. MS is smart enough to recognize that. That was one area where I was willing to concede to MS in the anti-trust action. The choices for OS for a CPU family is a lot more limited than SUVs from even a single automaker these days. WHere i do have a problem with MS is in their lobbying for legal protection etc for all the "non-licensed" copies out there (e.g., dumped OEM disks sold on the gray market...or even some of the black market....if it's mostly being given away, then the argument that the "black market" is killing them financially doesn't ring true.) and other things under UCITA. "Juergen + Barbara" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: 6RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books arvard.edu under a "shrink-wrap license" 01/15/01 07:12 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss reliable source -- being me when I was technical support and product manager working for a PC manufacturer in San Jose, 1996 - 1998. Win 9x $1, Win NT (workstation) $ 110 (extra). We had actually to fight not to pay MS when we selling the PCs (built to customer order) with other, non-MS, OS: Netware, SCO OpenServer, SCO UnixWare, etc. (they later dropped that plan, getting too much resistance fom other PC manufacturers, too.) MS also earns from OS upgrades (Windows 3.x to Windows 95 to Windows 98 to Windows ME, ...), I don't know the ratio Windows OEM version sold vs. Windows retail, may be equal shares. Again, most money is made in the server market (hardware and software). Also, while Novell Netware clients are basically free, Novell Netware server costs. Ditto: SCO OpenServer and SCO UnixWare -- these animals are free for non-commercial, i.e., private use (http://www.sco.com/offers/license.html) -- aside from some fee for the media, sometimes you can download them buggers, though. The marginal fee ($1 or, say, $45 I see Windows ME offered since it came out) covers the media, a (smaller) handbook, etc. Support either through OEM partner or Micrsosoft (retail version only). Think about the zillions of PCs out, worldwide... Giving it away to "criple the competitors"? Only for the unequipped eye: as I said before, you get OS basically for free, MS, or not. BeOS, Linux, MacOS, ... marginal fees if you not opt to download godzilla bytes ( ;-) ). Cheers, jm. -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of D. C. Sessions Sent: Montag, 15. Januar 2001 06:16 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: 2RE: 2RE: xRE: [dvd-discuss] Selling books under a "shrink-wrap license" (...) No, I'm talking about the bread-and-butter Win9x license. Which, according to several external sources, is no cheaper than the DOS license which was running around $40 at the time when Microsoft ran Digital Research out of business. OEM preload licenses have always been Microsoft's mainstay, and server licensing has only recently been an issue. There is simply no reason why MS would price Windows at what amounts to free when they have the OEMs up against the wall. Put another way, this is simply not a credible assertion. Unless, of course, you can provide a verifiable instance of such a $1 OEM license? (...) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 16 11:57:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14056 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:57:16 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14053 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:57:13 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id JAA20340 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma019962; Tue, 16 Jan 01 08:59:23 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:00:29 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04507; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:59:22 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq, andpossiblecensorship... Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:07:23 -0700 Message-ID: <000901c07fde$cb014820$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-WSS-ID: 167AA1A7112927-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Michael.A.Rolenz > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:52 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Yes I was thinking of the Pentagon Papers too (and that was a case where > improper use of "national security" was involved.)...but how can business > interests be place higher than that or the First Amemdment. So we're on the same (exact) page here. Wendy discussed the concept of a "declaratory judgment action," even Kaplan left the door open for "the fair use community" to challenge the statute. What groups constitute the the affected parties. DVD Owners: If you own even one DVD, between Macrovision and CSS fair use is effectively obliterated. The LOC cited this as mere inconvenience. The "mere inconvenience" sitting in the back of the bus, or finding a drinking fountain labeled with one's ethic group (or having to where a pink triangle or yellow star -- it takes mere second to put on, right?) can constitute as grave a violation of civil, constitutional rights as can an absolute ban on speech. Digital Media Researchers: If you want to study the actually bits a content provider creates -- without interest in the content or encryption (neither fair use nor encryption research) you can neither exchange the tools needed to access the work, or obtain the tools needed to access the work (as they cannot be legally provided) -- and thus each research, in isolation must create his or her own tools for access. You cannot publish sufficient information for colleague to verify your work for fear of providing "too much" information about your means of access. Similar arguments apply clearly to steganographers, security researchers, and many others. What other groups are clearly potential "parties of interest?" John Zulauf Private Netizen From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 17 10:30:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19804 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:30:51 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19801 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:30:50 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f0HFXNf08607 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:33:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A65BB49.28A01E3A@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:33:30 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Web Publishing is a First Amendment Activity References: <000901c07fde$cb014820$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I found this while reading a government guideline for search and seizure: http://www.cybercrime.gov/searchmanual.htm "When agents have reason to believe that a search may result in a seizure of materials relating to First Amendment activities such as publishing or posting materials on the World Wide Web, they must consider the effect of the Privacy Protection Act ("PPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa." So, I looked it up: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html United States Code TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21A - PRIVACY PROTECTION SUBCHAPTER I - FIRST AMENDMENT PRIVACY PROTECTION Part A - Unlawful Acts " [I]t shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; " So, it appears codified that web publishing is a First Amendment activity. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 17 11:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19995 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:03:07 -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 LAA19992 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:03:05 -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; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:06:14 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Web Publishing is a First Amendment Activity To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:06:12 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/17/2001 08:06:14 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id LAA19993 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu One of the perversions of the legal system of the last 20 years has been the RICO laws. Property can be confiscated not because one believes a crime has been committed beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of the evidence (ie. lowering the standards for criminal activity to the civil level). The obvious correlary is that organizations such as the MPAA really don't need to meet the governement standards for search and seizure. Hopefully they won't be entitled to another perversion of our legal system - the no knock warrent. mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Web Publishing is a First arvard.edu Amendment Activity 01/17/01 07:36 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss I found this while reading a government guideline for search and seizure: http://www.cybercrime.gov/searchmanual.htm "When agents have reason to believe that a search may result in a seizure of materials relating to First Amendment activities such as publishing or posting materials on the World Wide Web, they must consider the effect of the Privacy Protection Act ("PPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa." So, I looked it up: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html United States Code TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21A - PRIVACY PROTECTION SUBCHAPTER I - FIRST AMENDMENT PRIVACY PROTECTION Part A - Unlawful Acts " [I]t shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; " So, it appears codified that web publishing is a First Amendment activity. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 17 14:41:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA21189 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:41:19 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA21186 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:41:16 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f0HJhbf18399 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:43:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A65F5ED.19762253@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:43:41 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Question References: <3A494A04.6841B2C3@mindspring.com> <200101152153.QAA22473@smtp6.mindspring.com> <20010115232518.A1762@lemuria.org> 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 While looking for information on trade secret law, I found this in the US Code: ===================================== United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 90 - PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS Sec. 1831.(a) Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly; (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; ======================================= While this appears to be limited to espionage, the thing that stands out to me is the use of the words "converted without authorization." There is also the "without authorization ... conveys a trade secret" sentence that looks like it was already an issue to disclose a reverse-engineered trade secret. Do I read that correctly? I know we've beat the authority horse to death, but the question of who can be authorized, and under what conditions, is a big one. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 17 15:20:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21520 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:20:34 -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 PAA21517 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:20:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05159 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:23:46 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:23:46 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Question In-Reply-To: <3A65F5ED.19762253@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 The interesting part is that the DVDCCA is headed by a foreign national. If the "forces of good" ever take the offensive, it would be fitting to take the loose model of authority that the DVDCCA attempted to foist on the court system and prove that they are criminal under their own theory. On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, mickeym wrote: > >While looking for information on trade secret law, I found this in the US >Code: > >===================================== >United States Code > TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE > PART I - CRIMES > CHAPTER 90 - PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS > >Sec. 1831.(a) Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit >any foreign > government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly; >(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, >photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, >replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or >conveys a trade secret; >(3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have >been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without >authorization; >======================================= > >While this appears to be limited to espionage, the thing that stands out >to me is the use of the words "converted without authorization." There is >also the "without authorization ... conveys a trade secret" sentence that >looks like it was already an issue to disclose a reverse-engineered trade >secret. > >Do I read that correctly? I know we've beat the authority horse to death, >but the question of who can be authorized, and under what conditions, is >a big one. > >mickeym > > > > > -- 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 Jan 17 15:32:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21699 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:32:20 -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 PAA21696 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:32:18 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05685 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:35:36 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:35:36 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Web Publishing is a First Amendment Activity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id PAA21697 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >One of the perversions of the legal system of the last 20 years has been >the RICO laws. Property can be confiscated not because one believes a crime Something tells me that the MPAA's worst nightmare would be that someone connected to the court system even hears the mention of RICO in connection with this case. They are engaged in a legalized form of racketeering, and if all that the .gov has to do is prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, they might as well bag it right now. I've noticed that the .gov epitomizes the axiom "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" when it comes to legal matters. >has been committed beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of the >evidence (ie. lowering the standards for criminal activity to the civil >level). The obvious correlary is that organizations such as the MPAA really >don't need to meet the governement standards for search and seizure. >Hopefully they won't be entitled to another perversion of our legal system >- the no knock warrent. > > > > mickeym > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Web Publishing is a First > arvard.edu Amendment Activity > > > 01/17/01 07:36 AM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > >I found this while reading a government guideline for search and seizure: > >http://www.cybercrime.gov/searchmanual.htm > >"When agents have reason to believe that a search may result in a seizure >of >materials relating to First Amendment activities such as publishing or >posting >materials on the World Wide Web, they must consider the effect of the >Privacy >Protection Act ("PPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa." > >So, I looked it up: > >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html > >United States Code >TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE >CHAPTER 21A - PRIVACY PROTECTION >SUBCHAPTER I - FIRST AMENDMENT PRIVACY PROTECTION >Part A - Unlawful Acts > >" [I]t shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in >connection >with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for >or >seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed >to >have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, >or >other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or >foreign commerce; " > > >So, it appears codified that web publishing is a First Amendment activity. > >mickeym > > > > > -- 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 Jan 17 17:55:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23988 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:55:20 -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 RAA23977 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:55:16 -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; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:58:24 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Question To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:58:22 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/17/2001 02:58:24 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 I don't think so. One must read laws in context . The context here describes the means of espionage and receiving it. Reverse engineering is hardly appropriating, converting or obtaining a trade secret....although I know that a number of people of the "intellectual monopoly is good school" would like to outlaw reverse engineering.... mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Trade Secret Question arvard.edu 01/17/01 11:47 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss While looking for information on trade secret law, I found this in the US Code: ===================================== United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 90 - PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS Sec. 1831.(a) Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly; (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; ======================================= While this appears to be limited to espionage, the thing that stands out to me is the use of the words "converted without authorization." There is also the "without authorization ... conveys a trade secret" sentence that looks like it was already an issue to disclose a reverse-engineered trade secret. Do I read that correctly? I know we've beat the authority horse to death, but the question of who can be authorized, and under what conditions, is a big one. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 17 18:25:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24356 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:25:47 -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 SAA24353 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:25:45 -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; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:28:56 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Web Publishing is a First Amendment Activity To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:28:54 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/17/2001 03:28:56 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id SAA24354 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu No... the RICO laws are never used to procecute good people-only evil drug lords in the war on drugs (never pay for a plane ticket in cash at the ticket counter. Everybody knows that drug lords carry bundles of cocaine impregnated cash with them.) Actually it's not racketteering since they are not involved in any illegal activity except anti-trust. I don't know what the burden or proof is an an anti-trust case but since it is a civil matter, I would guess that it is by a preponderance. John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Web Publishing is a arvard.edu First Amendment Activity 01/17/01 12:47 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > >One of the perversions of the legal system of the last 20 years has been >the RICO laws. Property can be confiscated not because one believes a crime Something tells me that the MPAA's worst nightmare would be that someone connected to the court system even hears the mention of RICO in connection with this case. They are engaged in a legalized form of racketeering, and if all that the .gov has to do is prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, they might as well bag it right now. I've noticed that the .gov epitomizes the axiom "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" when it comes to legal matters. >has been committed beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of the >evidence (ie. lowering the standards for criminal activity to the civil >level). The obvious correlary is that organizations such as the MPAA really >don't need to meet the governement standards for search and seizure. >Hopefully they won't be entitled to another perversion of our legal system >- the no knock warrent. > > > > mickeym > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Web Publishing is a First > arvard.edu Amendment Activity > > > 01/17/01 07:36 AM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > >I found this while reading a government guideline for search and seizure: > >http://www.cybercrime.gov/searchmanual.htm > >"When agents have reason to believe that a search may result in a seizure >of >materials relating to First Amendment activities such as publishing or >posting >materials on the World Wide Web, they must consider the effect of the >Privacy >Protection Act ("PPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa." > >So, I looked it up: > >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html > >United States Code >TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE >CHAPTER 21A - PRIVACY PROTECTION >SUBCHAPTER I - FIRST AMENDMENT PRIVACY PROTECTION >Part A - Unlawful Acts > >" [I]t shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in >connection >with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for >or >seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed >to >have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, >or >other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or >foreign commerce; " > > >So, it appears codified that web publishing is a First Amendment activity. > >mickeym > > > > > -- 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 Thu Jan 18 11:33:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA23464 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:33:34 -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 LAA23458 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:33:25 -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, 18 Jan 2001 08:36:37 -0800 Subject: [dvd-discuss] Copies in RAM vs Copies for Use To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:36:35 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/18/2001 08:36:36 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 I was pondering the lamentable confusion of the legal system on the legality of making RAM copies. Technically, we all find it silly because we understand that this is how the hardware works. Consider this argument then. The distributers of copyright material are required to be 'reasonable" people. They have the money to hire experts who can explain to them how things work. If they object to the making or RAM copies then no one is forcing them to release material electronically. They may continue with traditional distributions (e.g., paper, magnetic tape). By distributing it electronically there is an implied concent for the RAM copy to be made. Or as the 'reasonable man" would put it "you can afford to find out how things work. You didn't bother. If you don't like it, that's too bad. You should have checked it out before you did so. So don't waste the courts time now." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 18 14:27:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA26312 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:27:52 -0500 Received: from web119.yahoomail.com (web119.mail.yahoo.com [205.180.60.120]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA26307 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:27:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 12331 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Jan 2001 19:31:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20010118193102.12330.qmail@web119.yahoomail.com> Received: from [216.165.3.191] by web119.yahoomail.com; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:31:02 PST Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:31:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Tuyet A. Ngoc Tran" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Video Technology 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 Hacker's Video Technology Goes Opensource http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2675031,00.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 18 20:58:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03447 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:58:07 -0500 Received: from smtp10.phx.gblx.net (smtp10.phx.gblx.net [206.165.6.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03443 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:57:58 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp10.phx.gblx.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11280 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:01:11 -0700 Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp10.phx.gblx.net, id smtpdk59zqa; Thu Jan 18 19:01:02 2001 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 TAA09171 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:01:07 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:01:07 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="X-UNKNOWN" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Web Publishing is a First Amendment Activity MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01011819010700.00754@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 Wednesday 17 January 2001 13:35, John Galt wrote: # On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: # # > # >One of the perversions of the legal system of the last 20 years has been # >the RICO laws. Property can be confiscated not because one believes a crime # # Something tells me that the MPAA's worst nightmare would be that someone # connected to the court system even hears the mention of RICO in connection # with this case. They are engaged in a legalized form of racketeering, and # if all that the .gov has to do is prove it by a preponderance of the # evidence, they might as well bag it right now. I've noticed that the .gov # epitomizes the axiom "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle # them with bullshit" when it comes to legal matters. One of the interesting things about RICO is that it allows non-governmental entities (e.g., you and me) to bring actions under it and -- get this -- collect. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 18 21:02:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA03552 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:02:13 -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 VAA03543 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:02:08 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21237 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:00:31 -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 smtpdAAAcVa4zP; Thu Jan 18 19:00:21 2001 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 TAA09176 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:05:14 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:05:14 -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] Copies in RAM vs Copies for Use MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01011819051401.00754@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 18 January 2001 09:36, you wrote: # I was pondering the lamentable confusion of the legal system on the # legality of making RAM copies. Technically, we all find it silly because we # understand that this is how the hardware works. Consider this argument # then. The distributers of copyright material are required to be # 'reasonable" people. They have the money to hire experts who can explain to # them how things work. If they object to the making or RAM copies then no # one is forcing them to release material electronically. They may continue # with traditional distributions (e.g., paper, magnetic tape). By # distributing it electronically there is an implied concent for the RAM copy # to be made. Or as the 'reasonable man" would put it "you can afford to find # out how things work. You didn't bother. If you don't like it, that's too # bad. You should have checked it out before you did so. So don't waste the # courts time now." It's actually simpler than that. RAM copies are "fair use" copies, whose use is expected in the normal use of the copyrighted material. Much as the prints made by following an embroidery pattern are "normal use:" if you don't copy the pattern, there's no point in buying it in the first place. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 19 08:31:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA06310 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:31:16 -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 IAA06307 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:31:15 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inigjm.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.66.118]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA10980 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:34:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101191334.IAA10980@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:26:00 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Appeal, Pavlovich Order In-Reply-To: <20010108153348.A691@edin-ios-14.cisco.com> References: 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 EFF Appeals MPAA v. 2600 Decision: http://cryptome.org/eff011901.htm Matthew Pavlovich Granted Order to Show Cause: http://cryptome.org/mp011801.htm From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 19 10:17:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07488 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:17:44 -0500 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA07485 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:17:42 -0500 Message-ID: <20010119152105.29212.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:21:05 PST Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:21:05 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Appeal, Pavlovich Order 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 --- John Young wrote: > Matthew Pavlovich Granted Order to Show Cause: > > http://cryptome.org/mp011801.htm "The Appellate Court, on its own motion, also issued an immediate stay of all proceedings in the lower court based on a finding of good cause. The stay may only be lifted through a subsequent order by the Appellate Court or a higher court." Of "stay of all proceedings"!? What is the procedural effect of this? This sounds like a good thing, although it may also be a slowdown in terms of the glacial pace that the CA court system seems to move. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 19 12:45:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08707 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:45:09 -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 MAA08702 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:45:07 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniifa.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.73.234]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04706 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:48:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101191748.MAA04706@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:39:47 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] John Gilmore Blasts Copy Protection 2 In-Reply-To: <200101191334.IAA10980@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> References: <20010108153348.A691@edin-ios-14.cisco.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 John Gilmore, EFF, has written a second, even stronger, critique of the venal DMCA vandals, "What's Wrong With Copy Protection": http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm A passionate statement for open source, for resisting global corporatization of creativity. Did you know the 2600 defense cost $1.5 million, that the MPAA offense cost $4.5 million? The lawsuit clocks are still arunning amok? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 19 14:40:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09383 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:40:27 -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 OAA09380 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:40:19 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa218.pool013.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.76.218]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07823 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:42:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010119113018.00d6d8a0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:40:26 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Appeal, Pavlovich Order In-Reply-To: <20010119152105.29212.qmail@web513.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 07:21 AM 1/19/2001 -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >--- John Young wrote: > > > Matthew Pavlovich Granted Order to Show Cause: > > > > http://cryptome.org/mp011801.htm > >"The Appellate Court, on its own motion, also issued an immediate stay of all >proceedings in the lower court based on a finding of good cause. The stay may >only be lifted through a subsequent order by the Appellate Court or a higher >court." > >Of "stay of all proceedings"!? What is the procedural effect of this? This >sounds like a good thing, although it may also be a slowdown in terms of the >glacial pace that the CA court system seems to move. It means that, until a higher court says otherwise, everything in the Superior Court (the trial court) is stopped dead in its tracks. No trial, no motions, no discovery, no decision on Derek's motion to quash, no nothing. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jan 19 21:42:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA12001 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:42:57 -0500 Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA11998 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:42:56 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld7ks.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.158.156]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA14421 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:46:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A68FAD2.1874A534@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:41:23 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Secure Digital, sec 1201 et seq,andpossiblecensorship... References: <000901c07fde$cb014820$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> 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 odd bit today: http://www.talkcity.com/borders/trans/9-28-98.htmpl "Martin Garbus: There are a lot of cases I've been involved with that are forgotten about today. I was an un-indicted, co-conspirator in the Pentagon Papers case. The Pentagon Papers were hidden in my garage for a period of about 2 years while Daniel Ellsburg tried to get someone to publicize and publish them." mickeym John Zulauf wrote: > > Michael.A.Rolenz > > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:52 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > > > Yes I was thinking of the Pentagon Papers too (and that was a case where > > improper use of "national security" was involved.)...but how can business > > interests be place higher than that or the First Amemdment. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 19 23:50:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA12281 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:50:06 -0500 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA12278 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:50:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20010120045325.26803.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:53:25 PST Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:53:25 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor 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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 19 23:54:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA12369 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:54:35 -0500 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA12366 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:54:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20010120045756.22198.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:57:56 PST Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:57:56 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 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 Here's an HTML version of a draft of the EFF brief. My opinion after reading it: it kicks ass. A lot of the ideas and cases and themes that we discussed here are packaged with a professional quality. Wow. http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_brief.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 02:45:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA12521 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:45:53 -0500 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA12518 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:45:52 -0500 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 415FF99C88; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:49:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1D6938C0 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:49:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:49:15 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit In-Reply-To: <20010120045756.22198.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.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, 19 Jan 2001, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Here's an HTML version of a draft of the EFF brief. My opinion after reading > it: it kicks ass. A lot of the ideas and cases and themes that we discussed > here are packaged with a professional quality. Wow. > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_brief.html There is at least one factual error in it; DeCSS is not necessary to bypass region coding. There are hacks such as Remote Selector which work with a regular software DVD player and bypass region coding. (They only bypass region coding if the drive doesn't check the region code itself, but DeCSS only bypasses region coding under those same circumstances.) There are also various hacks for standalone DVD players to bypass region coding. Therefore, you don't *need* DeCSS to bypass region coding. If you say DeCSS is necessary to bypass region coding, be prepared for the MPAA to ask "what about Remote Selector?" (You don't *need* it to skip ads, either; there is the occasional commercial player hack to skip ads, though that's nowhere near as common as region coding hacks.) It might be more accurate to say that you need to use DeCSS or some other method of circumvention to bypass region coding, rather than just DeCSS. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 07:01:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA13464 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:01:56 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f89.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.89]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA13460 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:01:54 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:04:49 -0800 Received: from 63.230.6.89 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:04:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.230.6.89] From: "K Phill" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:04:49 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2001 12:04:49.0785 (UTC) FILETIME=[30658E90:01C082D9] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Remote selector _will not_ work with the newer DVD players anyway as the firmware will be incorporating anti-tampering technology. The MPAA ic cracking down on commercial players that are not "compliant" (The Apex that everyone loved no longer has the menu loophole) So, once all the players are fixed so you can't break the region coding with a "hack" (any day now), you're left with one way to decode the bit stream: DeCSS. DeCSS is the only "equipment independent" algorithym to use to play DVDs (outside of licensed commercial players). >From: Ken Arromdee > >There is at least one factual error in it; DeCSS is not necessary to bypass >region coding. There are hacks such as Remote Selector which work with a >regular software DVD player and bypass region coding. (They only bypass >region coding if the drive doesn't check the region code itself, but DeCSS >only bypasses region coding under those same circumstances.) There are >also >various hacks for standalone DVD players to bypass region coding. >Therefore, >you don't *need* DeCSS to bypass region coding. > >If you say DeCSS is necessary to bypass region coding, be prepared for the >MPAA to ask "what about Remote Selector?" (You don't *need* it to skip >ads, >either; there is the occasional commercial player hack to skip ads, though >that's nowhere near as common as region coding hacks.) > >It might be more accurate to say that you need to use DeCSS or some other >method of circumvention to bypass region coding, rather than just DeCSS. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 08:07:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA13618 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:07:24 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA11753 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:49:43 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA30766 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:56:07 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:56:02 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno Message-ID: <20010119195602.A30755@eldritchpress.org> References: <3A494A04.6841B2C3@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from tim@tneu.visi.com on Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:46:15AM -0600 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:46:15AM -0600, tim wrote: > > Any ruling in Eldred v. Reno yet? Not yet. Thanks for your kind words! I had been checking http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/ daily for any opinion. With Lynx on my Linux machine (what I use) I can read the appeals court main page but can't use their Pacer database to look up past opinions. I see they are still advertising for a Unix Systems Administrator so if anyone is looking to help them with their web site this is your chance--somehow I don't think they would listen to my advice even if my RSI allowed me to go back to sysadmin... sorry, I've been having some personal difficulties as well so haven't been in touch here and might not be able to help with DVD matters much either. >It's been quite a while... How long do > these things normally take? The same court is gearing up for the Microsoft v DOJ appeal, so let's hope they get around to this little one before they are overwhelmed with that appeal. I am told that the law clerks all leave in August, so perhaps we will hear before then. It started in October of 1998, sigh! I am now plenty discouraged--especially thinking that a Supreme Court that could decide the recent presidential election the way they did is not one that I want to depend on for a full and honest interpretation of the law and the constitution. In any case, as you imply, justice in these matters does not seem to be very swift except in the interests of the other side. Bitterness! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 09:07:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA13784 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:07:01 -0500 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA13781 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:06:59 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38lc5hm.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.22.54]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA00771 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:10:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A699B29.3A8E5AF3@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:05:29 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno References: <3A494A04.6841B2C3@mindspring.com> <20010119195602.A30755@eldritchpress.org> 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 Eric Eldred wrote: > The same court is gearing up for the Microsoft > v DOJ appeal, so let's hope they get around to > this little one before they are overwhelmed with > that appeal. I am told that the law clerks all > leave in August, so perhaps we will hear before > then. It started in October of 1998, sigh! Looks like US v MS starts soon: Monday, February 26, 2001 9:30 AM Ceremonial Courtroom EN BANC COURT 00-5212 USA v. Microsoft Corp > > > I am now plenty discouraged--especially thinking > that a Supreme Court that could decide the recent > presidential election the way they did is not one > that I want to depend on for a full and honest > interpretation of the law and the constitution. > In any case, as you imply, justice in these matters > does not seem to be very swift except in the > interests of the other side. Bitterness! Maybe I'm naive, but I remain optimistic about our system of justice. Compared to the rest of the planet, ours is pretty good. Be realistic, but don't give in to discouragement. Our system is relatively fair, but it is painfully slow and, as Douglas Adams might say, "It steers like a cow." mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 11:47:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14194 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:47:53 -0500 Received: from web10012.mail.yahoo.com (web10012.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.172.123]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA14125 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:13:27 -0500 Message-ID: <20010120161653.1923.qmail@web10012.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.131.99.129] by web10012.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:16:53 PST Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:16:53 -0800 (PST) From: Larry Blunk Subject: [dvd-discuss] Book publishers views on Digital Rights Management 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 The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has put out a paper on Digital Rights Management as part of the Ebook Standards project. The paper can be found at http://www.publishers.org/home/drm.pdf See also their paper on technological measures http://www.publishers.org/home/abouta/copy/licensing.htm and the evils of scanning http://www.publishers.org/home/abouta/copy/scanning.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 14:37:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14638 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:37:34 -0500 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14635 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:37:29 -0500 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 3B39599C95; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F4A938C0 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:40:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:40:52 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 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 Sat, 20 Jan 2001, K Phill wrote: > Remote selector _will not_ work with the newer DVD players anyway as the > firmware will be incorporating anti-tampering technology. The MPAA ic > cracking down on commercial players that are not "compliant" (The Apex that > everyone loved no longer has the menu loophole) > So, once all the players are fixed so you can't break the region coding with > a "hack" (any day now), you're left with one way to decode the bit stream: > DeCSS. DeCSS is the only "equipment independent" algorithym to use to play > DVDs (outside of licensed commercial players). Umm, not quite. Although Remote Selector won't work to bypass region coding on those newer players, neither will DeCSS. And for exactly the same reason. If all the players are fixed so that you can't use a hack to break region coding, you won't be able to use DeCSS to break region coding either. Under those circumstances, you would need an unlicensed DVD *drive* that doesn't have a region check. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 14:56:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14753 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:56:54 -0500 Received: from spdmraaa.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-1.compuserve.com [149.174.206.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14750 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:56:52 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id OAA09978 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from LocalHost (mid-tgn-ngz-vty43.as.wcom.net [216.192.90.43]) by spdmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id OAA09962 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:59:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:00:53 -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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3A699B29.3A8E5AF3@mindspring.com> Disposition-Notification-To: "Juergen + Barbara" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu yeah, right "compared to the rest of the planet..." what is the foundation of this remark of yours? Do you really know anything outside the USA "island"? Do you know that often the USA courthouse became laughingstock of, say, Europe. So many examples where the judges just run havoc, often, where suspects are prosecuted because the DAs or the judges battled to be reelected. Where a death conviction (Texas) was not set aside for a new trial, even though the judges acknowledged the attorney of the convict had actually slept throughout the whole trial! Or where someone was sentenced to 17 years of prison for stealing a candy bar. And when the judge was questioned about the excessive punishment, he just was quoted saying, "yeah; but is was a very large candy bar!". There are lots of improvements due in the US judiciary system. The "party line" votes of the often "sharply divided" Supreme court for various cases do not provide comfort, and do definitely stand out as being supreme compared to the rest of the world! Not to be misunderstood: I often shake the head myself on some European court decisions, and I do not necessarily agree with some results of the German or UK or French Supreme courts, either. But just to state the US were the best in the world, is a stupid and ridiculous remark. Thanks, jm. -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of mickeym Sent: Samstag, 20. Januar 2001 06:05 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno (...) Maybe I'm naive, but I remain optimistic about our system of justice. Compared to the rest of the planet, ours is pretty good. Be realistic, but don't give in to discouragement. Our system is relatively fair, but it is painfully slow and, as Douglas Adams might say, "It steers like a cow." mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 16:06:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA15003 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:06:28 -0500 Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA15000 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:06:26 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld6p0.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.155.32]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA16726 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:09:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A69FD78.271368D6@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:04:56 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) 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 I said "pretty good", not "best." I also used the term "relatively" when discussing planetary fairness, and I have been off the island several times so I can at least offer a mildly seasoned opinion as to my choice of legal systems. I was waving my flag a little, I suppose, and it certainly wasn't intended to offend anyone. mickeym, the offtopic Juergen + Barbara wrote: > yeah, right "compared to the rest of the planet..." > > what is the foundation of this remark of yours? > Do you really know anything outside the USA "island"? > > Do you know that often the USA courthouse became laughingstock of, say, Europe. > So many examples where the judges just run havoc, often, where suspects are prosecuted because the DAs or the judges battled to be > reelected. > > Where a death conviction (Texas) was not set aside for a new trial, even though the judges acknowledged the attorney of the convict > had actually slept throughout the whole trial! > > Or where someone was sentenced to 17 years of prison for stealing a candy bar. And when the judge was questioned about the > excessive punishment, he just was quoted saying, "yeah; but is was a very large candy bar!". > > There are lots of improvements due in the US judiciary system. > > The "party line" votes of the often "sharply divided" Supreme court for various cases do not provide comfort, and do definitely > stand out as being supreme compared to the rest of the world! > > Not to be misunderstood: I often shake the head myself on some European court decisions, and I do not necessarily agree with some > results of the German or UK or French Supreme courts, either. But just to state the US were the best in the world, is a stupid and > ridiculous remark. > > Thanks, > jm. > > -----Original Message----- > From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of mickeym > Sent: Samstag, 20. Januar 2001 06:05 > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno > > (...) > > Maybe I'm naive, but I remain optimistic about our system of justice. > Compared to the rest of the planet, ours is pretty good. Be realistic, > but don't give in to discouragement. Our system is relatively fair, but > it is painfully slow and, as Douglas Adams might say, "It steers like a > cow." > > mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 18:19:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA15736 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:19:53 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f50.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.50]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15733 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:19:52 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:22:48 -0800 Received: from 63.230.6.89 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:22:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.230.6.89] From: "K Phill" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:22:48 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2001 23:22:48.0486 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6CABC60:01C08337] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I wrote; > > So, once all the players are fixed so you can't break the region coding >with > > a "hack" (any day now), you're left with one way to decode the bit >stream: > > DeCSS. DeCSS is the only "equipment independent" algorithym to use to >play > > DVDs (outside of licensed commercial players). >From: Ken Arromdee >Umm, not quite. > >Although Remote Selector won't work to bypass region coding on those newer >players, neither will DeCSS. And for exactly the same reason. > >If all the players are fixed so that you can't use a hack to break region >coding, you won't be able to use DeCSS to break region coding either. > >Under those circumstances, you would need an unlicensed DVD *drive* that >doesn't have a region check. You have made my argument for me! - what are you left with? Breaking region encoding does nothing to help you "view" a DVD - therefore DeCSS becomes necessary. Future hardware might be modified to read such a bitstream off a dvd disc; http://de.news.yahoo.com/001101/27/15lqt.html Which case the "region check" (and thus "remote selector") is irrelevant. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 20:50:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA16397 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:50:25 -0500 Received: from bur-jud-175-135 (bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.175.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA16200 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:02:01 -0500 Received: from sam by bur-jud-175-135 with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14K8xi-0004eJ-00 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:06:30 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:06:30 -0600 From: Sam TH To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) Message-ID: <20010120190630.J9660@uchicago.edu> References: <3A699B29.3A8E5AF3@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vJI8q/aziP9idhqk" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: ; from jmhoraze@compuserve.com on Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 12:00:53PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --vJI8q/aziP9idhqk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 12:00:53PM -0800, Juergen + Barbara wrote: > yeah, right "compared to the rest of the planet..." >=20 > what is the foundation of this remark of yours? > Do you really know anything outside the USA "island"? >=20 > Do you know that often the USA courthouse became laughingstock=20 > of, say, Europe. Well, the country other than the United States that I know the most about, Germany, has both advantages and disadvantages over the US. True, there is no death penalty, but there is widespread censorship of particular views (facist ones. mostly). And just as an example of the difference in freedoms, someone was arrested a while ago (like, at least 10 years) for having a bumper sticker with the Bertold Brecht quote "Soldaten sind Moerder" (soldiers are murders). They eventually won their court case, in from of the supreme counrt, but they would never even be questioned in the US. =20 So there are definitely arguments on both sides. =20 =20 sam th =20 sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: =20 http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key --vJI8q/aziP9idhqk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6ajYWt+kM0Mq9M/wRAupsAJ0amoffnPwDAvaI0ojj/OW029Wt0QCgz8A1 YfUpzkcIYdmALM0lCb0AWQM= =GtUU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vJI8q/aziP9idhqk-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Jan 20 21:37:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA17076 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:37:30 -0500 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA17073 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:37:27 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h002078d5b1ce.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.193]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0L2esK24156 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:40:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A6A4C31.99E86407@mediaone.net> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:40:49 -0500 From: Sphere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit References: <20010120045756.22198.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> 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 Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Here's an HTML version of a draft of the EFF brief. My opinion after reading > it: it kicks ass. A lot of the ideas and cases and themes that we discussed > here are packaged with a professional quality. Wow. > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_brief.html A very good defense argument, but it doesn't attack the DMCA itself (which it probably shouldn't have, being a defense argument). I'd like to see a brief arguing that if Congress cannot make law abridging freedom of speech then Congress cannot make law which a powerfull commercial entity can use to chill freedom of speech, and that therefore the DMCA is totally unconstitutional by not being so clear that it cannot be misused by commercial interests to further their misbegotten ends. -- 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 Sun Jan 21 03:16:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA19036 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:16:12 -0500 Received: from smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.40.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA19033 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:16:10 -0500 Received: from newmicronpc (adsl-151-202-191-226.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.191.226]) by smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id DAA15153 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:41 -0500 (EST) From: "John Dempsey" To: Subject: RE: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:16:28 -0500 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 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20010120190630.J9660@uchicago.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu in preschool we teachers learn that shame is a pretty poor teacher, it's demeaning and disempowering, and i think some of germany's anti-fascist censorship rules come from a sense of shame. -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Sam TH Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:07 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 12:00:53PM -0800, Juergen + Barbara wrote: > yeah, right "compared to the rest of the planet..." > > what is the foundation of this remark of yours? > Do you really know anything outside the USA "island"? > > Do you know that often the USA courthouse became laughingstock > of, say, Europe. Well, the country other than the United States that I know the most about, Germany, has both advantages and disadvantages over the US. True, there is no death penalty, but there is widespread censorship of particular views (facist ones. mostly). And just as an example of the difference in freedoms, someone was arrested a while ago (like, at least 10 years) for having a bumper sticker with the Bertold Brecht quote "Soldaten sind Moerder" (soldiers are murders). They eventually won their court case, in from of the supreme counrt, but they would never even be questioned in the US. So there are definitely arguments on both sides. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 21 03:46:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA19164 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:46:51 -0500 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA19161 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:46:50 -0500 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id 0EC6799C9F; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:50:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19E3938C0 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:50:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:50:16 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Arromdee To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 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 Sat, 20 Jan 2001, K Phill wrote: > You have made my argument for me! - what are you left with? Breaking region > encoding does nothing to help you "view" a DVD - therefore DeCSS becomes > necessary. Future hardware might be modified to read such a bitstream off a > dvd disc; > > http://de.news.yahoo.com/001101/27/15lqt.html > > Which case the "region check" (and thus "remote selector") is irrelevant. It may be irrelevant, but it was also mentioned in EFF's draft. Incorrectly. If it's not relevant, they shouldn't have said it at all. Instead they say that DeCSS is necessary to bypass region coding; it's not. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 21 07:20:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA20152 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:20:09 -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 HAA20149 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:20:05 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb3c.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.60]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156BF27AB4 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:20:24 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C7340175182; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:20:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:20:33 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) Message-ID: <20010121132032.I16675@lemuria.org> References: <20010120190630.J9660@uchicago.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 gifs@oz.net on Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 03:16:28AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 03:16:28AM -0500, John Dempsey wrote: > in preschool we teachers learn that shame is a pretty poor teacher, it's > demeaning and disempowering, and i think some of germany's anti-fascist > censorship rules come from a sense of shame. being driven by a small but powerful minority. maybe half of the current german population was not even a teenager when the war ended. the vast majority of them reject being called guilty for something that happened before their birth or within the first few years of their lives. however, the point's being driven home so often and so fanatically that you're pretty much brainwashed into an anti-fascist hysterie over here. personally, I strongly believe the growing strength of neo-nazi elements over the past 10 years or so is mainly a counter-reaction to that. however, I doubt whether this is a question of the COURT system. more likely it's a question of the legislative branch which passes those laws. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 21 07:32:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA20267 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:32:29 -0500 Received: from bur-jud-175-135 (bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.175.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA20264 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:32:28 -0500 Received: from sam by bur-jud-175-135 with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14KJk2-0001dE-00 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 06:37:06 -0600 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 06:37:06 -0600 From: Sam TH To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) Message-ID: <20010121063706.A6231@uchicago.edu> References: <20010120190630.J9660@uchicago.edu> <20010121132032.I16675@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <20010121132032.I16675@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 01:20:33PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 01:20:33PM +0100, Tom wrote: > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 03:16:28AM -0500, John Dempsey wrote: > > in preschool we teachers learn that shame is a pretty poor teacher, it's > > demeaning and disempowering, and i think some of germany's anti-fascist > > censorship rules come from a sense of shame. >=20 > being driven by a small but powerful minority. maybe half of the current > german population was not even a teenager when the war ended. the vast > majority of them reject being called guilty for something that happened > before their birth or within the first few years of their lives. > however, the point's being driven home so often and so fanatically that > you're pretty much brainwashed into an anti-fascist hysterie over here. Well, I'm sure you don't want to hear me talk about contemporary german attitudes toward the holocaust, so I won't bore you. But not everyone agrees with this perspective. =20 >=20 > personally, I strongly believe the growing strength of neo-nazi > elements over the past 10 years or so is mainly a counter-reaction to > that. Or, a multitude of factors, many of which contributed to the rise of the Nazis in the first place: unemployment, recent change in regime, and racism. Among other things. >=20 >=20 > however, I doubt whether this is a question of the COURT system. more > likely it's a question of the legislative branch which passes those > laws. Well, many people would like similar laws in the US, and the legislature here is willing to pass just about anything (as we, of all people should know :-( ) but the court system prevents this. =20 =20 sam th =20 sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: =20 http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6atfyt+kM0Mq9M/wRAlUSAKDQm/cDkgWFYVnlqcVthn3HmtacHwCfXJec ddl+ZI1FRapeeg6K9UusbFg= =sKq/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 21 07:45:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA20352 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:45:46 -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 HAA20349 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:45:43 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb3c.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.60]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A7627AB4 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:46:18 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A560D175182; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:46:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:46:29 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) Message-ID: <20010121134628.P16675@lemuria.org> References: <20010120190630.J9660@uchicago.edu> <20010121132032.I16675@lemuria.org> <20010121063706.A6231@uchicago.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010121063706.A6231@uchicago.edu>; from sam@uchicago.edu on Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 06:37:06AM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 06:37:06AM -0600, Sam TH wrote: > Or, a multitude of factors, many of which contributed to the rise of > the Nazis in the first place: unemployment, recent change in regime, > and racism. Among other things. of course, there's hardly ever a single source. I've just seen a couple of people becoming interested in nazi stuff after being drowned in antifacism. > > however, I doubt whether this is a question of the COURT system. more > > likely it's a question of the legislative branch which passes those > > laws. > > Well, many people would like similar laws in the US, and the > legislature here is willing to pass just about anything (as we, of all > people should know :-( ) but the court system prevents this. as you may know, we're a little less litigation-happy and it happens comparatively rarely that a law is being stopped in the court system. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 21 17:08:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23187 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:08:47 -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 RAA23184 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:08:45 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id RAA07144 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from LocalHost (chi-tgn-guy-vty35.as.wcom.net [216.192.141.35]) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id RAA07032; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:11:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: 2RE: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:12:48 -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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010120190630.J9660@uchicago.edu> Disposition-Notification-To: "Juergen + Barbara" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Regarding protecting constitutional rights, you may be right. Still, everything is in the eye of the beholder, and also one has o consider recent pasts. Very careful one has to judge between individual expression vs. what may lead to hate crime. While fashists definitely get their blow in Europe, here in USA it is their past with the slavery and the long, long battle, until very recently the black people were eventually granted the constitutional rights (and there are still laws out there -- even though, of course, not enforced -- where a black pupil is not allowed in a white school, or has to get out of a bus if there are not enough space for white people). Or the way US counties, states discriminate against people who just want enjoy nude bath at (designated, even remote) beaches. California, BTW, has a much more relaxed stand on that matter; i.e., not the police can arrest sun bathers and skinny dippers at will, etc. And -- going back to the topic -- I find it troublesome that Freedom of Speech mostly means those of big companies or industry or -- worse -- special interest groups, but not necessarily of the individual; or their rights to enjoy art they way they want and not if it were compliant to, say, Regioncode or some other mind-controlling set. And where is a democracy when it is all about having or not having the money to hire best attorneys? Where famous figures are not prosecuted or get free because they can hire lawyers for mega bugs, whereas poorer convicts don't even stand the slightest chance not being prosecuted and even put to death row? And, worse, even though found not guilty, here in the USA you mostly don't even get reimbursed for your expenses of defending being wrongfully accused! There are pluses and minuses for each judiciary system around the world. And luckily, the MPAA is not necessarily being bowed to in all countries! ;-) Cheers, jm. -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Sam TH Sent: Samstag, 20. Januar 2001 17:06 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: US best compared to the rest... RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno) (...) And just as an example of the difference in freedoms, someone was arrested a while ago (like, at least 10 years) for having a bumper sticker with the Bertold Brecht quote "Soldaten sind Moerder" (soldiers are murders). They eventually won their court case, in from of the supreme counrt, but they would never even be questioned in the US. So there are definitely arguments on both sides. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 06:45:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA29731 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 06:45:29 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA29722 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 06:45:27 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14KfSy-0003S3-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:48:56 +0100 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:48:56 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit In-Reply-To: <20010120045756.22198.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.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, 19 Jan 2001, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Here's an HTML version of a draft of the EFF brief. My opinion after reading > it: it kicks ass. A lot of the ideas and cases and themes that we discussed > here are packaged with a professional quality. Wow. > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_brief.html "The easiest way to see this is to recognize that if it were a program that expressed anything else, such as how to factor prime numbers or .. " Seems to follow Bill Gates fallacious statement in "The Road ahead", where he implies that factoring primes is exceedingly hard, when in fact it is trivial. ( Composite numbers on the other hand are a different kind of beast ) frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 11:20:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30862 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:20:43 -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 LAA30859 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:20:36 -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, 22 Jan 2001 08:24:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:23:56 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/22/2001 08:23:59 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 I read it over the weekend. It commands assent (T. Jefferson's words not mine.) I especially liked the rebuttal of some of Kaplan's statements regarding licensing. ("Who can pay $20,000-$30,000 years andwhy?") Bryan Taylor To: dvd-discuss Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 01/19/01 09:02 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Here's an HTML version of a draft of the EFF brief. My opinion after reading it: it kicks ass. A lot of the ideas and cases and themes that we discussed here are packaged with a professional quality. Wow. http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_brief.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 11:39:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA31084 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:39:49 -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 LAA31081 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:39:43 -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; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:43:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:43:05 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/22/2001 08:43:08 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 Yes. Remember what Churchill said about democracy - "the worst form of government except for all other forms of government". The good thing about the system is that it does change...albeit slowly. It may be time for one of those periodic overhauls of the system (e.g., look at a jury trial. 200yrs ago I doubt that anybody conceived of a trial lasting 4 weeks much less 9 months as in the Simpson case. After reading Ito's sequestering rules, I wondered why Amnesty International didn't file suit for the Jurors. The defendant had more consideration than the jurors.). I think some of the problem is falling upon the legislatures - they are writing stupid laws with the notion that the courts will fix them eventually. Then you've got the executive branch announcing that it won't enforce laws to which it is ideologically opposed (e.g., Meese and Watt in the Reagan administration) Also, read some of the opinions and arguments. No wonder the courts are clogged and sluggish. They are full of citations, precedents, references. It's all a sort of legal accounting that really wouldn't pass muster in freshman English classes that must be extremely time consuming to write, read, review and rebut. (The EFF brief to the second court is an exception). Of course, some of my impatience with that reflects my own temperament when arguing - keep it simple and then hammer it. mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno arvard.edu 01/20/01 06:14 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Eric Eldred wrote: > The same court is gearing up for the Microsoft > v DOJ appeal, so let's hope they get around to > this little one before they are overwhelmed with > that appeal. I am told that the law clerks all > leave in August, so perhaps we will hear before > then. It started in October of 1998, sigh! Looks like US v MS starts soon: Monday, February 26, 2001 9:30 AM Ceremonial Courtroom EN BANC COURT 00-5212 USA v. Microsoft Corp > > > I am now plenty discouraged--especially thinking > that a Supreme Court that could decide the recent > presidential election the way they did is not one > that I want to depend on for a full and honest > interpretation of the law and the constitution. > In any case, as you imply, justice in these matters > does not seem to be very swift except in the > interests of the other side. Bitterness! Maybe I'm naive, but I remain optimistic about our system of justice. Compared to the rest of the planet, ours is pretty good. Be realistic, but don't give in to discouragement. Our system is relatively fair, but it is painfully slow and, as Douglas Adams might say, "It steers like a cow." mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 11:46:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA31221 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:46:13 -0500 Received: from web513.mail.yahoo.com (web513.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.228]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA31218 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:46:11 -0500 Message-ID: <20010122164943.23166.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web513.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:49:43 PST Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:49:43 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 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 --- Sphere wrote: > A very good defense argument, but it doesn't attack > the DMCA itself (which it probably shouldn't have, > being a defense argument). The defense takes the point of view that the DMCA is fine if you confine it to a protection on the pre-existing rights of copyright holders. In other words, they basically say: you own the DVD, so you have "authority". I beleive that is going to be a lot easier for a court to accept. Courts like to make narrow rulings like "the DMCA cannot have been meant to protect this particular situation". I happen to think that the DMCA does have a role to play by stopping free-ride interception of encrypted streaming audio/video. A narrow DMCA would be very similar to laws banning unauthorized cable TV descramblers, but it wouldn't be phrased in a way that was specific to any one technology. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 11:56:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA31292 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:56:27 -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 LAA31289 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:56:21 -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; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:59:44 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:59:41 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/22/2001 08:59:43 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 Actually when I read the brief I very much got the impression that the DMCA was being used by "commercial interests to further their misbegotten ends". Yes the sections on DMCA could be "beefed up" but the interests of Eric Corley are the EFFs primary concern. I've always been told that even Supreme Court Justices prefer that lawyers discuss their clients case and not constitutional issues when pleading before them. Sphere To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd arvard.edu Circuit 01/20/01 06:44 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Here's an HTML version of a draft of the EFF brief. My opinion after reading > it: it kicks ass. A lot of the ideas and cases and themes that we discussed > here are packaged with a professional quality. Wow. > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_brief.html A very good defense argument, but it doesn't attack the DMCA itself (which it probably shouldn't have, being a defense argument). I'd like to see a brief arguing that if Congress cannot make law abridging freedom of speech then Congress cannot make law which a powerfull commercial entity can use to chill freedom of speech, and that therefore the DMCA is totally unconstitutional by not being so clear that it cannot be misused by commercial interests to further their misbegotten ends. -- 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 Mon Jan 22 12:01:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31639 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:01:56 -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 MAA31636 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:01:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20010122170525.7372.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:05:25 PST Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:05:25 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] prime numbers [WAS: EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit] 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 --- Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010119_ny_eff_appeal_brief.html > > "The easiest way to see this is to recognize that if it were a program > that expressed anything else, such as how to factor prime numbers or .. " > > Seems to follow Bill Gates fallacious statement in "The Road ahead", where > he implies that factoring primes is exceedingly hard, when in fact it is > trivial. ( Composite numbers on the other hand are a different kind of > beast ) Well, factoring a prime number is only easy if you have already proven it is prime -- in other words if you've already determined it's factors. Consider the number 2^8191 - 1 . If I said to factor this number, and it turns out to be prime, then your job isn't any easier. (I think it IS prime, but I'm not sure). This is actually important, because there are methods that generate large numbers that are very likely to be prime, but you don't know for sure. Of course, the legal point they are making doesn't depend on any of this. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 12:10:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31831 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:10:15 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA31691 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:02:46 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05169; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:06:11 GMT Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:06:11 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20010122164943.23166.qmail@web513.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- Sphere wrote: > > A very good defense argument, but it doesn't attack > > the DMCA itself (which it probably shouldn't have, > > being a defense argument). > > The defense takes the point of view that the DMCA is fine if you confine it to > a protection on the pre-existing rights of copyright holders. In other words, > they basically say: you own the DVD, so you have "authority". I beleive that > is going to be a lot easier for a court to accept. Courts like to make narrow > rulings like "the DMCA cannot have been meant to protect this particular > situation". > > I happen to think that the DMCA does have a role to play by stopping free-ride > interception of encrypted streaming audio/video. A narrow DMCA would be very > similar to laws banning unauthorized cable TV descramblers, but it wouldn't be > phrased in a way that was specific to any one technology. > Didn't I see a discussion on this group from around September last, in which someone dug up some H.R (House Report?) in which a certain Senator Ashcroft seemed to be very astutely predicting our current situation? IIRC he (Ashcroft) was basically saying that he could only vote for the DMCA if it was made very obvious from its drafting so that misuses like the 2600 case couldn't happen. He seemed well aware that DMCA was intended to protect things like subscription cable TV services but would inevitably be misused for things like consumer electronics cartel enforcement. I didn't notice much in the way of references to H.Rs in the EFF brief - are they admissible in court for the purposes of trying to convince a judge that a law is being misused against its writers' wishes? -- 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 Jan 22 12:12:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31941 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:12:12 -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 MAA31934 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:12:09 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4E87E27B18; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:12:37 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:12:37 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno Message-ID: <20010122181237.B4387@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:43:05AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:43:05AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Also, read some of the opinions and arguments. No wonder the courts are > clogged and sluggish. They are full of citations, precedents, references. > It's all a sort of legal accounting that really wouldn't pass muster in > freshman English classes that must be extremely time consuming to write, > read, review and rebut. (The EFF brief to the second court is an > exception). Of course, some of my impatience with that reflects my own > temperament when arguing - keep it simple and then hammer it. I'm afraid it's not an accident. it's the jura equivalent to what the computer science calls "information hiding". in essence, it's a measure of securing your job by making sure that you or someone else of your profession is REQUIRED to check or even understand it. except that the lawyers, by building forever on everything from the past, have or will be reaching soon a point where it's too much even for them to deal with. it works in computer science because programs are much more seperated from each other than laws or court rulings are. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 12:14:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA32061 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:14:05 -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 MAA32054 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:14:03 -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, 22 Jan 2001 09:17:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:17:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/22/2001 09:17:30 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 Also, I like the way they argued that the concept that the authority of the copyright holder is passed to you through the purchase of approved equipment is meaningless. When you buy the DVD you are buying the authority PERIOD. The MPAA arguement is an attempt to split a hair. Bryan Taylor To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd arvard.edu Circuit 01/22/01 09:06 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss --- Sphere wrote: > A very good defense argument, but it doesn't attack > the DMCA itself (which it probably shouldn't have, > being a defense argument). The defense takes the point of view that the DMCA is fine if you confine it to a protection on the pre-existing rights of copyright holders. In other words, they basically say: you own the DVD, so you have "authority". I beleive that is going to be a lot easier for a court to accept. Courts like to make narrow rulings like "the DMCA cannot have been meant to protect this particular situation". I happen to think that the DMCA does have a role to play by stopping free-ride interception of encrypted streaming audio/video. A narrow DMCA would be very similar to laws banning unauthorized cable TV descramblers, but it wouldn't be phrased in a way that was specific to any one technology. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 12:15:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA32108 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:15:02 -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 MAA32105 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:14:55 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4DCD627B19; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:15:29 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:15:29 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] prime numbers [WAS: EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit] Message-ID: <20010122181529.C4387@lemuria.org> References: <20010122170525.7372.qmail@web510.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: <20010122170525.7372.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:05:25AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:05:25AM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > Seems to follow Bill Gates fallacious statement in "The Road ahead", where > > he implies that factoring primes is exceedingly hard, when in fact it is > > trivial. ( Composite numbers on the other hand are a different kind of > > beast ) > > Well, factoring a prime number is only easy if you have already proven it is > prime -- in other words if you've already determined it's factors. Consider the > number 2^8191 - 1 . If I said to factor this number, and it turns out to be > prime, then your job isn't any easier. (I think it IS prime, but I'm not sure). I guess the argument was a slightly different one. factoring primes IS easy. that doesn't mean it's fast or you can do it quickly by hand. but the various algorithms are well known and quite simple, actually. the process is computationally expensive (that's why it's being used in cryptography) but not difficult. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 12:21:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00332 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:21:11 -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 MAA00329 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:21:09 -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, 22 Jan 2001 09:24:21 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:24:18 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/22/2001 09:24:20 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 I'd like to ask former Senator Ashcroft how he would feel enforcing the DMCA as Attorney General? Certainly, he may have a better understanding of it than Kaplan does. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd arvard.edu Circuit 01/22/01 09:15 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Bryan Taylor wrote: > --- Sphere wrote: > > A very good defense argument, but it doesn't attack > > the DMCA itself (which it probably shouldn't have, > > being a defense argument). > > The defense takes the point of view that the DMCA is fine if you confine it to > a protection on the pre-existing rights of copyright holders. In other words, > they basically say: you own the DVD, so you have "authority". I beleive that > is going to be a lot easier for a court to accept. Courts like to make narrow > rulings like "the DMCA cannot have been meant to protect this particular > situation". > > I happen to think that the DMCA does have a role to play by stopping free-ride > interception of encrypted streaming audio/video. A narrow DMCA would be very > similar to laws banning unauthorized cable TV descramblers, but it wouldn't be > phrased in a way that was specific to any one technology. > Didn't I see a discussion on this group from around September last, in which someone dug up some H.R (House Report?) in which a certain Senator Ashcroft seemed to be very astutely predicting our current situation? IIRC he (Ashcroft) was basically saying that he could only vote for the DMCA if it was made very obvious from its drafting so that misuses like the 2600 case couldn't happen. He seemed well aware that DMCA was intended to protect things like subscription cable TV services but would inevitably be misused for things like consumer electronics cartel enforcement. I didn't notice much in the way of references to H.Rs in the EFF brief - are they admissible in court for the purposes of trying to convince a judge that a law is being misused against its writers' wishes? -- 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 Jan 22 12:24:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00469 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:24:37 -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 MAA00465 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:24:36 -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, 22 Jan 2001 09:27:56 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:27:53 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/22/2001 09:27:55 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 Also, it's job security as it is with spaghetti coders. Once it's so messed up that only you can understand it, one's set. At some point, it's the legislatures duty to codify the precedents into existing law rather than leaving it to be brought out by the courts time and again. "information hiding"- I once worked with "the kid from MIT" who's idea of information hiding was to create a new level of software every time you needed to start implementing. He had about 7 layers that did absolutly nothing before hitting a trivial module. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Reno 01/22/01 09:17 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:43:05AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Also, read some of the opinions and arguments. No wonder the courts are > clogged and sluggish. They are full of citations, precedents, references. > It's all a sort of legal accounting that really wouldn't pass muster in > freshman English classes that must be extremely time consuming to write, > read, review and rebut. (The EFF brief to the second court is an > exception). Of course, some of my impatience with that reflects my own > temperament when arguing - keep it simple and then hammer it. I'm afraid it's not an accident. it's the jura equivalent to what the computer science calls "information hiding". in essence, it's a measure of securing your job by making sure that you or someone else of your profession is REQUIRED to check or even understand it. except that the lawyers, by building forever on everything from the past, have or will be reaching soon a point where it's too much even for them to deal with. it works in computer science because programs are much more seperated from each other than laws or court rulings are. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 13:49:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA00893 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:49:02 -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 NAA00844 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:46:04 -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 MAA03872 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:49:35 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A6C81A9.9725C831@uic.edu> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:53:29 -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] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 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 > Didn't I see a discussion on this group from > around September last, in which someone dug > up some H.R (House Report?) in which a certain > Senator Ashcroft seemed to be very astutely > predicting our current situation? Hmm ... If you can find that article, that would be great. Might be worth starting a letter-writing campaign to draw Mr. Ashcroft's attention to the problem. Assuming he survives the confirmation process, it would be very nice to have him on our side, assuming he's still interested in the issue ... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 22 20:55:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA04753 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:55:53 -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 UAA04716 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:47:49 -0500 Received: from acm.org (user-vcauos0.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.99.128]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA12425; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:51:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A6CE380.45E9F633@acm.org> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:50:56 -0800 From: Barbara Simons X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Eldred , Andrew Grosso CC: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, Barbara Simons Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: DeCSS - reverse engineering amicus References: <20001016184318.B8827@eldritchpress.org> 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 Hi. Sorry for not responding to this email. It got buried in my inbox, and I just now "rediscovered" it. As it happens, Andy Grosso is working on an ACM brief. I am cc'ing Andy on this note. I don't know if this is too late for Andy or for you. I hope it will be of use to Andy, who I know is overwhelmed with all the other work he has to do. My guess is that he can use all the help he can get, but of course that's his call. Again, I most sincerely apologize for having dropped this. Barbara P.S. Thanks for the nice comments about the election. I think that Karl is doing an excellent job. Eric Eldred wrote: > Hi Barbara, > > You were kind enough to offer to *try to* refer the reverse > engineering aspect of an amicus brief in the DeCSS appeal > to anyone at ACM who might be preparing such a brief. > > The OpenLaw participants have prepared a draft brief > and it is too long, so we are hoping you can help now. > What we have for an amicus brief is at > http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/amicus/2nd_Cir/2Cam.html > and the reverse engineering pages are at > http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor/dvd/amicus/2nd_Cir/rev_eng > > Please let us know if you are able to get a response > from someone preparing another amicus brief for the > appeal. Otherwise we will have to eliminate some of > the arguments. That would be a shame, since the ACM > fought for just these reverse engineering exceptions > when the DMCA was passed, and we feel strongly that > the higher courts must recognize them. > > Thanks in advance for whatever you can do! And thanks > for your effort in running for the ICANN board--let's > hope that Karl Auerbach will steal some of your ideas > and represent us nearly as well as you could have. > > -- > "Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press > mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org > http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 05:11:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA07941 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:11:58 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA07938 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:11:56 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06151; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:15:29 GMT Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:15:29 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <3A6C81A9.9725C831@uic.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Schulien wrote: > > Didn't I see a discussion on this group from > > around September last, in which someone dug > > up some H.R (House Report?) in which a certain > > Senator Ashcroft seemed to be very astutely > > predicting our current situation? > > Hmm ... If you can find that article, that would be > great. Might be worth starting a letter-writing > campaign to draw Mr. Ashcroft's attention to the > problem. Assuming he survives the confirmation > process, it would be very nice to have him on our > side, assuming he's still interested in the issue ... > OK, after a manual search through the mailing-list archive, here's what I remembered: Jolley wrote article #7732 (see archive) in reply to #7722 from Robert S. Thau. I now quote from Jolley (but the underlining is mine): > > Your argument against Kaplan's conclusion seems to agree with Senator > Ashcroft: > > From [page: S4890] > In discussing the anti-circumvention portion of the legislation, I > think it is worth emphasizing that I could agree to support the > bill's approach of outlawing certain devices because I was ------------- > repeatedly assured that the device prohibitions in 1201(a)(2) ------------------------------------------------------------- > and 1201(b) are aimed at so-called `black boxes' and not at ----------------------------------------------------------- > legitimate consumer electronics and computer products that have ----------------------------------------------------- > substantial non-infringing uses. I specifically worked for and > achieved changes to the bill to make sure that no court would > misinterpret this bill as outlawing legitimate consumer electronics > devices or computer hardware. As a result, neither section > 1201(a)(2) nor section 1201(b) should be read as outlawing any > device with substantial non-infringing uses, as per the tests > provided in those sections. > > If history is a guide, however, someone may yet try to use this > bill as a basis for initiating litigation to stop legitimate new > products from coming to market. By proposing the addition of section > 1201(d)(2) and (3), I have sought to make clear that any such effort > to use the courts to block the introduction of new technology > should be bound to fail. > > It's amazing how Senator Ashcroft predicted this battle of the MPAA > to control the player market by preventing the development and > bringing to market a new product -- a Linux DVD player. > I *think* the reference to "page S4890" refers to H.R. 2281, but I'm not sure. Anyway, all grist for the mill. -- 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 Tue Jan 23 09:53:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA08589 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:53:38 -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 JAA08586 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:53:37 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2inigti.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.67.178]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28225 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:57:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101231457.JAA28225@smtp6.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:48:47 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Verio on MPAA and DMCA In-Reply-To: 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 Cryptome has received an interesting letter this morning from the counsel of Verio, our ISP, on MPAA's alleged violation of DMCA. That is not garbled syntax; the counsel hints that MPAA may be violating DMCA by alleging Cryptome has: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-dvc.htm Cryptome has sent Verio a counter-notification of MPAA's allegation, in accord with DMCA as Verio sees it. If anyone has seen other examples of these counter-notifications we'd like to hear about them. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 10:28:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA08822 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:28:36 -0500 Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA08819 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:28:34 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13302 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:26:23 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAOpaGoz; Tue Jan 23 08:25:40 2001 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 IAA27542 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:31:11 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:31:11 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200101231457.JAA28225@smtp6.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <200101231457.JAA28225@smtp6.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Verio on MPAA and DMCA MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01012308311108.13793@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 Tuesday 23 January 2001 07:48, John Young wrote: # Cryptome has received an interesting letter this morning # from the counsel of Verio, our ISP, on MPAA's alleged # violation of DMCA. That is not garbled syntax; the counsel # hints that MPAA may be violating DMCA by alleging # Cryptome has: # # http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-dvc.htm # # Cryptome has sent Verio a counter-notification of MPAA's # allegation, in accord with DMCA as Verio sees it. If anyone # has seen other examples of these counter-notifications we'd # like to hear about them. I love it. I absolutely love it. This _really_ needs to get before a judge, who will we all hope have a strong constitution to prevent death by excessive mirth. The DMCA has gone and declared that Court documents must be censored under the DMCA. No, there's no First Amendment issue here Your Honor. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 11:29:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09489 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:29:56 -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 LAA09485 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:29:49 -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; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:32:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Verio on MPAA and DMCA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:32:02 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/23/2001 08:32:05 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 we didn't know when we were reading Kafka in literature classes was that he was really writing about REALITY! "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Verio on MPAA and arvard.edu DMCA 01/23/01 07:33 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tuesday 23 January 2001 07:48, John Young wrote: # Cryptome has received an interesting letter this morning # from the counsel of Verio, our ISP, on MPAA's alleged # violation of DMCA. That is not garbled syntax; the counsel # hints that MPAA may be violating DMCA by alleging # Cryptome has: # # http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-dvc.htm # # Cryptome has sent Verio a counter-notification of MPAA's # allegation, in accord with DMCA as Verio sees it. If anyone # has seen other examples of these counter-notifications we'd # like to hear about them. I love it. I absolutely love it. This _really_ needs to get before a judge, who will we all hope have a strong constitution to prevent death by excessive mirth. The DMCA has gone and declared that Court documents must be censored under the DMCA. No, there's no First Amendment issue here Your Honor. -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 11:34:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09649 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:34:22 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09646 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:34:20 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14L6SA-0007eI-00; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:37:54 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:37:54 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: http: ; Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Verio on MPAA and DMCA In-Reply-To: <200101231457.JAA28225@smtp6.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 Does the MPAA notification really fulfill the requirement of section 512: (i) - We can't verify the presence of a signature on the notification there might be one on paper though. (ii) - The notice fails to identify any (original) copyrighted work that is being infringed upon. (iii) - Site/URL: cryptome.org/dvd-hoy-reply.htm Must be what is "infringing" per a sec 512 identification (iv) - MPAA seems to have included a proper address. (v) - The material in question ( Hoy reply ) is not copyrighted, so it cannot be claimed that it is being used in a manner not authorized by the copyright holder. (vi) - MPAA state under penalty of perjury that the information is correct, but cannot reasonably claim that they are authorized to represent someone having exclusive rights of the material identified in (iii) Firstly, the letter itself does not even claim to be a 512 notification, and if it is, it fails in at least 3 out of seven points that a proper section 512 notice should contain. Why this should deserve being treated as a 512 notice is beyond me. frank ( From http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/dmca/pl105-304.txt ) ``(3) Elements of notification.-- ``(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following: ``(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. ``(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. ``(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. ``(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted. ``(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. ``(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, John Young wrote: > Cryptome has received an interesting letter this morning > from the counsel of Verio, our ISP, on MPAA's alleged > violation of DMCA. That is not garbled syntax; the counsel > hints that MPAA may be violating DMCA by alleging > Cryptome has: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-dvc.htm > > Cryptome has sent Verio a counter-notification of MPAA's > allegation, in accord with DMCA as Verio sees it. If anyone > has seen other examples of these counter-notifications we'd > like to hear about them. This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 11:41:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09776 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:41:20 -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 LAA09773 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:41:13 -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; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:44:43 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:44:39 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/23/2001 08:44:43 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 If the intent was to rid the world of "black boxes" for cable pirates, why pass it at all? Piracy is already illegal and you don't need ANOTHER law to stop it, just enforce the ones you have already! "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd arvard.edu Circuit 01/23/01 02:17 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss John Schulien wrote: > > Didn't I see a discussion on this group from > > around September last, in which someone dug > > up some H.R (House Report?) in which a certain > > Senator Ashcroft seemed to be very astutely > > predicting our current situation? > > Hmm ... If you can find that article, that would be > great. Might be worth starting a letter-writing > campaign to draw Mr. Ashcroft's attention to the > problem. Assuming he survives the confirmation > process, it would be very nice to have him on our > side, assuming he's still interested in the issue ... > OK, after a manual search through the mailing-list archive, here's what I remembered: Jolley wrote article #7732 (see archive) in reply to #7722 from Robert S. Thau. I now quote from Jolley (but the underlining is mine): > > Your argument against Kaplan's conclusion seems to agree with Senator > Ashcroft: > > From [page: S4890] > In discussing the anti-circumvention portion of the legislation, I > think it is worth emphasizing that I could agree to support the > bill's approach of outlawing certain devices because I was ------------- > repeatedly assured that the device prohibitions in 1201(a)(2) ------------------------------------------------------------- > and 1201(b) are aimed at so-called `black boxes' and not at ----------------------------------------------------------- > legitimate consumer electronics and computer products that have ----------------------------------------------------- > substantial non-infringing uses. I specifically worked for and > achieved changes to the bill to make sure that no court would > misinterpret this bill as outlawing legitimate consumer electronics > devices or computer hardware. As a result, neither section > 1201(a)(2) nor section 1201(b) should be read as outlawing any > device with substantial non-infringing uses, as per the tests > provided in those sections. > > If history is a guide, however, someone may yet try to use this > bill as a basis for initiating litigation to stop legitimate new > products from coming to market. By proposing the addition of section > 1201(d)(2) and (3), I have sought to make clear that any such effort > to use the courts to block the introduction of new technology > should be bound to fail. > > It's amazing how Senator Ashcroft predicted this battle of the MPAA > to control the player market by preventing the development and > bringing to market a new product -- a Linux DVD player. > I *think* the reference to "page S4890" refers to H.R. 2281, but I'm not sure. Anyway, all grist for the mill. -- 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 Tue Jan 23 11:42:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09786 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:42:23 -0500 Received: from smtp10.phx.gblx.net (smtp10.phx.gblx.net [206.165.6.140]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09783 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:42:21 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp10.phx.gblx.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19662 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:45:41 -0700 Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp10.phx.gblx.net, id smtpd3e16Ea; Tue Jan 23 09:45:37 2001 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 JAA27712 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:45:43 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:45:43 -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] Verio on MPAA and DMCA MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0101230945430C.13793@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 Tuesday 23 January 2001 09:32, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: # What we didn't know when we were reading Kafka in literature classes was # that he was really writing about REALITY! What Kafka didn't realize was that he was sugar-coating the real situation. # "D. C. Sessions" # To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu # Sent by: cc: # owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Verio on MPAA and # arvard.edu DMCA # # # 01/23/01 07:33 AM # Please respond to # dvd-discuss # # # # # # # On Tuesday 23 January 2001 07:48, John Young wrote: # # Cryptome has received an interesting letter this morning # # from the counsel of Verio, our ISP, on MPAA's alleged # # violation of DMCA. That is not garbled syntax; the counsel # # hints that MPAA may be violating DMCA by alleging # # Cryptome has: # # # # http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-dvc.htm # # # # Cryptome has sent Verio a counter-notification of MPAA's # # allegation, in accord with DMCA as Verio sees it. If anyone # # has seen other examples of these counter-notifications we'd # # like to hear about them. # # I love it. I absolutely love it. This _really_ needs to get before # a judge, who will we all hope have a strong constitution to prevent # death by excessive mirth. The DMCA has gone and declared that # Court documents must be censored under the DMCA. # # No, there's no First Amendment issue here Your Honor. # # -- # | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| # +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 11:46:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09909 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:46:55 -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 LAA09906 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:46:54 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 22D6C27AB6; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:47:20 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:47:20 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit Message-ID: <20010123174720.C15391@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:44:39AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:44:39AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > If the intent was to rid the world of "black boxes" for cable pirates, why > pass it at all? Piracy is already illegal and you don't need ANOTHER law to > stop it, just enforce the ones you have already! because congress loves to pass laws - it gives them a sense of purpose. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 11:52:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10020 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:52:51 -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 LAA10017 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:52:45 -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; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:56:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Verio on MPAA and DMCA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:56:05 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/23/2001 08:56:08 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 I know...I'm beginning to get a better appreciation for cockroaches.... A lawyer that attempts to censor the public display of court documents strikes me as a lawyer that is ripe for being disbarred. "D. C. Sessions" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Verio on MPAA and arvard.edu DMCA 01/23/01 08:48 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tuesday 23 January 2001 09:32, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: # What we didn't know when we were reading Kafka in literature classes was # that he was really writing about REALITY! What Kafka didn't realize was that he was sugar-coating the real situation. # "D. C. Sessions" # To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu # Sent by: cc: # owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Verio on MPAA and # arvard.edu DMCA # # # 01/23/01 07:33 AM # Please respond to # dvd-discuss # # # # # # # On Tuesday 23 January 2001 07:48, John Young wrote: # # Cryptome has received an interesting letter this morning # # from the counsel of Verio, our ISP, on MPAA's alleged # # violation of DMCA. That is not garbled syntax; the counsel # # hints that MPAA may be violating DMCA by alleging # # Cryptome has: # # # # http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-dvc.htm # # # # Cryptome has sent Verio a counter-notification of MPAA's # # allegation, in accord with DMCA as Verio sees it. If anyone # # has seen other examples of these counter-notifications we'd # # like to hear about them. # # I love it. I absolutely love it. This _really_ needs to get before # a judge, who will we all hope have a strong constitution to prevent # death by excessive mirth. The DMCA has gone and declared that # Court documents must be censored under the DMCA. # # No, there's no First Amendment issue here Your Honor. # # -- # | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| # +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ -- | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.| +----------- D. C. Sessions ----------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 15:05:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA15274 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:05:35 -0500 Received: from ntmail2n.interaccess.com (ntmail2n.interaccess.com [207.70.121.239]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA15271 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:05:34 -0500 Received: from elkornt1.elkor.com ([207.208.143.150]) by ntmail2n.interaccess.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52801U100L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:16:40 -0600 Received: from GABRIELLE ([192.168.1.217]) by elkornt1.elkor.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id DM5YQ84Q; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:10:41 -0600 From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:08:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [dvd-discuss] Paul, you should like this Message-ID: <3A6D9070.32709.48CFE3@localhost> 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 >From http://sns.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns- bushagenda.story?coll=sns%2Dnewsnation%2Dheadlines In a meeting Monday with Education Secretary Rod Paige and other educators, the president focused on teacher training and literacy. "Reading is the new civil right, the cornerstone of hope and opportunity in America," he said. Whew, that's a relief. sparky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 17:15:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA16885 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:15:28 -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 RAA16882 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:15:25 -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; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:18:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:18:49 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/23/2001 02:18:50 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 I think you may have touched upon one problem with democracy. If it ever achieves utopia, the government would be out of business. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 01/23/01 08:52 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:44:39AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > If the intent was to rid the world of "black boxes" for cable pirates, why > pass it at all? Piracy is already illegal and you don't need ANOTHER law to > stop it, just enforce the ones you have already! because congress loves to pass laws - it gives them a sense of purpose. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 17:20:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA16993 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:20:31 -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 RAA16985 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:20:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19820 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:24:04 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:24:03 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Paul, you should like this In-Reply-To: <3A6D9070.32709.48CFE3@localhost> 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 Tue, 23 Jan 2001, sparky wrote: >>From http://sns.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns- >bushagenda.story?coll=sns%2Dnewsnation%2Dheadlines > >In a meeting Monday with Education Secretary Rod Paige and other >educators, the president focused on teacher training and literacy. > >"Reading is the new civil right, the cornerstone of hope and opportunity in >America," he said. I wonder if the MPAA, by attempting to censor text, is "attempting to violate civil rights"? :) >Whew, that's a relief. > >sparky > > -- When you are having a bad day, and it seems like everybody is trying to tick you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle. Who is John galt? Galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 17:22:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA17034 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:22:06 -0500 Received: from waltz.rahul.net (postfix@waltz.rahul.net [192.160.13.9]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA17029 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:22:04 -0500 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4001) id BB98299C81; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:25:38 -0800 (PST) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Another problem with that EFF brief Message-Id: <20010123222538.BB98299C81@waltz.rahul.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:25:38 -0800 (PST) From: arromdee@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu (I sent this separately to the EFF along with my remark about Remote Selector...) "The District Court erroneously concluded that fair use is inapplicable in the context of anti-circumvention claims, stating, "[I]f Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such actions, it would have said so." Universal, 111 F.Supp.2d at 322. But Congress did say so. Section 1201(c)(1) provides that "[N]othing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." The problem here is that section 1201(c)(1) says that it doesn't affect fair use as a defense to copyright infringement. It *doesn't* say that it doesn't affect fair use in general. It might affect fair use as a defense for anticircumvention without affecting fair use as a defense for copyright infringement. (That might even be why the MPAA didn't accuse 2600 of copyright infringement. If they made that accusation, 2600 could point to that clause and claim fair use. But if they claim *only* anticircumvention, the fair use clause wouldn't apply.) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 18:57:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA18476 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:57:04 -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 SAA18473 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:57:02 -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; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:00:26 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Paul, you should like this To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:00:22 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/23/2001 04:00:26 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 There you go. I see the glimmer of a legal argument.....by encouraging people to abandon print for high quality DVDs, the MPAA is encouraging illiteracy. Therefore that's a violation of basic civil rights. Maybe I like some of his ideas! John Galt To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Paul, you should like arvard.edu this 01/23/01 02:27 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, sparky wrote: >>From http://sns.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns- >bushagenda.story?coll=sns%2Dnewsnation%2Dheadlines > >In a meeting Monday with Education Secretary Rod Paige and other >educators, the president focused on teacher training and literacy. > >"Reading is the new civil right, the cornerstone of hope and opportunity in >America," he said. I wonder if the MPAA, by attempting to censor text, is "attempting to violate civil rights"? :) >Whew, that's a relief. > >sparky > > -- When you are having a bad day, and it seems like everybody is trying to tick you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle. Who is John galt? Galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 19:00:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA18586 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:00:34 -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 TAA18583 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:00:32 -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; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:04:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another problem with that EFF brief To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:03:56 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/23/2001 04:04:00 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 I think the problem is that you cannot have a right if you cannot exercise it. YOu don't have fair use of copyright material if you cannot access it or the means of accessing it is denied you. "rights, remedies, limitations" below must refer to copyright and not copyright infringment arromdee@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Another problem with that arvard.edu EFF brief 01/23/01 02:28 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss (I sent this separately to the EFF along with my remark about Remote Selector...) "The District Court erroneously concluded that fair use is inapplicable in the context of anti-circumvention claims, stating, "[I]f Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such actions, it would have said so." Universal, 111 F.Supp.2d at 322. But Congress did say so. Section 1201(c)(1) provides that "[N]othing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." The problem here is that section 1201(c)(1) says that it doesn't affect fair use as a defense to copyright infringement. It *doesn't* say that it doesn't affect fair use in general. It might affect fair use as a defense for anticircumvention without affecting fair use as a defense for copyright infringement. (That might even be why the MPAA didn't accuse 2600 of copyright infringement. If they made that accusation, 2600 could point to that clause and claim fair use. But if they claim *only* anticircumvention, the fair use clause wouldn't apply.) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 23 21:53:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA19619 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:53:55 -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 VAA19616 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:53:52 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa144.pool010.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.81.144]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14566 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:57:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010123184057.00ab3f00@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:57:29 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? In-Reply-To: <20010109184726.A17048@lemuria.org> References: <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <20010109163837.4548.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> <20010109175715.D16993@lemuria.org> <01010910242500.19164@frankenstein.lumbercartel.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 A little birdie tells me that this subject may be addressed at some length in the so-called computer scientists' amicus brief in support of 2600. Since I wrote the brief, I believe that I am correctly compiling what the little birdie told me. Went out today by FedEx, will be filed with the Court and received by counsel tomorrow, expect to see it soon on a web site near you. "A more proper definition of source code may be simply that it is that subset of human expression which computers can interpret and execute. As time progresses, computers can interpret increasingly larger subsets of human expression; thus, restricting the expression of source code restricts increasingly larger subsets of human expression." (Quoting myself.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Jan 23 22:05:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19772 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:05:24 -0500 Received: from mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.29]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19769 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:05:23 -0500 Received: from swbell.net ([208.190.214.27]) by mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G7N001KF9MLHN@mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:01:33 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:59:29 -0600 From: Jolley Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <3A6E3701.7B21BB7D@swbell.net> Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-SBI-NC472 (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu These statements from Senator Ashcroft are in the Senate Congressional Record of the 2nd 105 Congress. These are related to what has become the DMCA which I think is H.R. 2281. If you get a chance, read the rest of Ashcroft's statements. There are a lot of gems in there. You can search through http://thomas.loc.gov. Another one I like is: I think of a little girl, perhaps, who puts on her Internet site the picture of a duck she draws. We shouldn't allow Disney to say, `We own Donald Duck. That looks too much like Donald,' and be able to bully a little girl from having a duck on her web site. We needed protection for the small user, not just for the big content promoters. I also like this one: While the overall structure of the legislation in this part is not the way I would have approached the issue I believe that I have been given enough assurance both in legislative language and in legislative history that I can support the bill. I still find troubling any approach that makes technology the focus of illegality rather than the bad conduct of a bad actor, but with the accommodations that have been given I think that the bill is workable. I certainly have hope that Attorney General Ashcroft would take a dim view of what the MPAA is doing and do something to stop them. Steve Hosgood wrote: > > > > > From [page: S4890] > > In discussing the anti-circumvention portion of the legislation, I > > think it is worth emphasizing that I could agree to support the > > bill's approach of outlawing certain devices because I was > ------------- > > repeatedly assured that the device prohibitions in 1201(a)(2) > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > and 1201(b) are aimed at so-called `black boxes' and not at > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > legitimate consumer electronics and computer products that have > ----------------------------------------------------- > > substantial non-infringing uses. I specifically worked for and > > achieved changes to the bill to make sure that no court would > > misinterpret this bill as outlawing legitimate consumer electronics > > devices or computer hardware. As a result, neither section > > 1201(a)(2) nor section 1201(b) should be read as outlawing any > > device with substantial non-infringing uses, as per the tests > > provided in those sections. > > > > If history is a guide, however, someone may yet try to use this > > bill as a basis for initiating litigation to stop legitimate new > > products from coming to market. By proposing the addition of section > > 1201(d)(2) and (3), I have sought to make clear that any such effort > > to use the courts to block the introduction of new technology > > should be bound to fail. > > > > It's amazing how Senator Ashcroft predicted this battle of the MPAA > > to control the player market by preventing the development and > > bringing to market a new product -- a Linux DVD player. > > > > I *think* the reference to "page S4890" refers to H.R. 2281, but I'm not > sure. > > Anyway, all grist for the mill. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 01:37:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA20937 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:37:56 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA20934 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:37:44 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA02749 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:45:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:44:59 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] EU committee adopting WIPO Message-ID: <20010124014459.A2739@eldritchpress.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu JANUARY 23, 15:20 EST Copyright Law Near in Europe By PAUL GEITNER AP Business Writer BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP)--At a final hearing Wednesday on updating European copyright laws for the digital age, music industry lobbyists will be arguing for last-ditch language to restrict private copying. Industry officials argue that the shape of the final directive, which as been hotly debated for more than three years, will determine in part the viability of selling music online in Europe. The tussle over what constitutes copying for private use--which is permitted under current law--is "very important and very disputed", said Nikos Tziorkas, spokesman for the European Parliament's Legal Affairs and Internal Market committee. The music industry says the directive's current wording is too vague and should incorporate more specific language in order to discourage Napster-like sharing of songs among a large group of people, which the Internet makes easy. "We don't have a problem if someone copies a piece of music for their car or summer house or teen-age daughter," said Francine Cunningham, spokeswoman for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry in Brussels. "We don't consider it to be private copying if you copy a piece of music and then e-mail it to 100 contacts on the Internet," she added. The IFPI is backing one of more than 200 amendments before the committee that would restrict private copying to "private use." Europe's major music companies and other rightsholders are pitched against hardware manufacturers, telecommunications companies and CD makers on other issues as well, including how much leeway individual countries will have to grant exceptions to the rules. Copyright holders, such as the record industry, the software industry and performers, want amendments that would allow an EU committee to oversee the practice. They argue that otherwise, there won't be a true single copyright standard for Europe, and hardware and content producers will have to cater for 15 different markets. Committee member Arlene McCarthy said that while "it's too early to say" what way the votes will go, she believed the Parliament was "leaning in the direction of strengthening rights" to favor those holding the copyright. European lawmakers have been sympathetic to copyright holders in past debates, viewing such a stance as a way to support European culture and investment in creative industries. The committee was to take up the amendments Wednesday afternoon, then send the final version to a committee vote next week. It then would go to the full Parliament in mid-February. If approved there without major changes, it would then be sent to European governments for ratification, which is considered a formality. But if substantial amendments pass, observers worry that member states will reject the proposal, resulting in further delay. The legislation would serve as the 15-nation European Union's adoption of a 1996 treaty drafted by the World Intellectual Property Organization, which covers copyright issues. EU ratification would tip it over the minimum number of countries needed to come into force around the world. Two years after the WIPO treaty, the United States implemented it through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which among other restrictions requires that "Webcasters" pay licensing fees to record companies. Copyright 2001 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 04:27:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA23479 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:27:06 -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 EAA23476 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:27:04 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3E9BBB78.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.120]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554E527ABA for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:27:27 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8A6B3175182; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:28:08 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:28:08 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit Message-ID: <20010124102807.C385@lemuria.org> References: <3A6E3701.7B21BB7D@swbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A6E3701.7B21BB7D@swbell.net>; from tjolley@swbell.net on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 07:59:29PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 07:59:29PM -0600, Jolley wrote: > I certainly have hope that Attorney General Ashcroft would take a dim > view of what the MPAA is doing and do something to stop them. so, is he already? time to get him involved? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 04:41:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA23791 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:41:56 -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 EAA23788 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:41:54 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3E9BBB78.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.120]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D4027ABA for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:42:31 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0A383175182; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:43:13 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:43:12 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] more WIPO material Message-ID: <20010124104312.D385@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu that WIPO document I found proves to be a great thing to read. (http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/imp99_3.pdf) for example, I just noticed that it puts a whole page to the "conduct vs. device" question, saying in essence that outlawing murder is "insufficient" and anything that may be used for murder, such as knifes or heavy stones, should be made illegal, too. (p.6) -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 07:28:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA26244 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:28:51 -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 HAA26241 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:28:50 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniifo.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.73.248]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA00324 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:32:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101241232.HAA00324@hall.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:23:16 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: <20010124102807.C385@lemuria.org> References: <3A6E3701.7B21BB7D@swbell.net> <3A6E3701.7B21BB7D@swbell.net> 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 We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm The amici: Harold Abelson Andrew W. Appel Dan Boneh Edward W. Felten Robert Harper Andy Hertzfeld Brian Kernighan Marvin Minsky James Morris P.J. Plauger James C. Reynolds Ronald Rivest Avi Rubin Barbara Simons Eugene H. Spafford Richard Stallman David S. Touretzky From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 08:03:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA26500 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:03:41 -0500 Received: from mason2.gmu.edu (mason2.gmu.edu [129.174.1.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA26497 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:03:39 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by mason2.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA31922 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:07:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:07:16 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin X-Sender: jerwin@mason2.gmu.edu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit In-Reply-To: <20010124102807.C385@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 Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 07:59:29PM -0600, Jolley wrote: > > I certainly have hope that Attorney General Ashcroft would take a dim > > view of what the MPAA is doing and do something to stop them. > > so, is he already? time to get him involved? > He has yet to be confirmed. The committee vote has been put off another week, with, presumably, the senate vote to follow. The Republicans say they have 53 votes... (There are, of course, many reasons to oppose Ashcroft that have nothing to do with copyright or paracopyright.) Jeremy Erwin From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 09:29:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA27368 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:29:04 -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 JAA27365 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:29:01 -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 IAA22562 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:32:36 -0600 Received: from zero.monsters.org by zero.monsters.org (8.11.0) id f0OES0b05757; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:28:00 -0600 Message-Id: <200101241428.f0OES0b05757@zero.monsters.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:23:16 EST." <200101241232.HAA00324@hall.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:28:00 -0600 From: Stephen L Johnson Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Jan 24, John Young wrote: > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm I've been looking over the brief. It is very clear and insightful. I especially liked the Perl code snippet comparison to legal citations. Touche! Stephen L Johnson From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 09:32:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA27395 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:32:03 -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 JAA27392 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:32:01 -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 JAA17818 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:35:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:35:37 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: <200101241232.HAA00324@hall.mail.mindspring.net> 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 01/24/01 at 07:23, 'twas brillig and John Young scrobe: > > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm > > The amici: > > Harold Abelson > Andrew W. Appel > Dan Boneh > Edward W. Felten > Robert Harper > Andy Hertzfeld > Brian Kernighan > Marvin Minsky > James Morris > P.J. Plauger > James C. Reynolds > Ronald Rivest > Avi Rubin > Barbara Simons > Eugene H. Spafford > Richard Stallman > David S. Touretzky All of these amici are of course very respected, but in particular the names Kernighan, Spafford, Stallman, and Minsky are Names That Resonate across the entire field of endeavours which we casually herd under the rubric of "computer science". I've only just started reading, but I must say I think the introductory "Interests of Amici" section does very little justice (pardon the pun) to the achievements of Brian W. Kernighan: "Dr. Brian Kernighan is a professor in the Computer Science Department at Princeton University. He was until recently head of the Computing Structures Research Department at Bell Labs, where he did research in programming languages, software tools, and user interfaces. He is the co-author of a number of widely-used computer books and programs." This is, to say the least, an understatement of the first water. Kernighan co-authored, with Dennis Ritchie, The C Programming Language (both the language itself and *the* reference work, of the same name) and IIRC also had a primary role in the development of the original UNIX operating system, which is still the core of most server and so-called "enterprise" class computer operating systems today. C and its daughters are probably the most widely-used languages in general computing. IMHO, that's a little like saying "Thurgood Marshall was a Federal Justice and served on the Supreme Court for several years." 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 Wed Jan 24 09:46:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA27768 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:46:00 -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 JAA27765 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:45:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA13066 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:49:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:49:35 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] SDMI cracked by French Researchers, full disclosure published 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 Slashdot article: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/24/1322248&mode=thread (so far, the commentary has been puerile, though) Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 10:45:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29859 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:45:57 -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 KAA29856 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:45:55 -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; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:49:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:49:24 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/24/2001 07:49:26 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 Well written. You get at Something that more "lay" people in the law don't grasp yet. Computer languages are synthetic languages that are far more simple that those of human beings. The vocabulary of a well spoken English speaker is about 3000 words. One can converse in English with a vocabulary of 300-500 words. Many computer languages have vocabularies of less than 100 words (although looking at java, the vocabulary is much higher but the exact count is hard since they concatenate verb and object ). More recent languages are beginning to have syntax that is very humanlike. "James S. Tyre" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or arvard.edu Conduct? 01/23/01 07:00 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss A little birdie tells me that this subject may be addressed at some length in the so-called computer scientists' amicus brief in support of 2600. Since I wrote the brief, I believe that I am correctly compiling what the little birdie told me. Went out today by FedEx, will be filed with the Court and received by counsel tomorrow, expect to see it soon on a web site near you. "A more proper definition of source code may be simply that it is that subset of human expression which computers can interpret and execute. As time progresses, computers can interpret increasingly larger subsets of human expression; thus, restricting the expression of source code restricts increasingly larger subsets of human expression." (Quoting myself.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wed Jan 24 10:47:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29918 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:47:35 -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 KAA29913 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:47:34 -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; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:51:03 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:51:02 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/24/2001 07:51:02 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 It may depend upon how much money MPAA gave to the current administrations campaign. An honest politician stays bought. Jolley Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 01/23/01 07:11 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss These statements from Senator Ashcroft are in the Senate Congressional Record of the 2nd 105 Congress. These are related to what has become the DMCA which I think is H.R. 2281. If you get a chance, read the rest of Ashcroft's statements. There are a lot of gems in there. You can search through http://thomas.loc.gov. Another one I like is: I think of a little girl, perhaps, who puts on her Internet site the picture of a duck she draws. We shouldn't allow Disney to say, `We own Donald Duck. That looks too much like Donald,' and be able to bully a little girl from having a duck on her web site. We needed protection for the small user, not just for the big content promoters. I also like this one: While the overall structure of the legislation in this part is not the way I would have approached the issue I believe that I have been given enough assurance both in legislative language and in legislative history that I can support the bill. I still find troubling any approach that makes technology the focus of illegality rather than the bad conduct of a bad actor, but with the accommodations that have been given I think that the bill is workable. I certainly have hope that Attorney General Ashcroft would take a dim view of what the MPAA is doing and do something to stop them. Steve Hosgood wrote: > > > > > From [page: S4890] > > In discussing the anti-circumvention portion of the legislation, I > > think it is worth emphasizing that I could agree to support the > > bill's approach of outlawing certain devices because I was > ------------- > > repeatedly assured that the device prohibitions in 1201(a)(2) > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > and 1201(b) are aimed at so-called `black boxes' and not at > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > legitimate consumer electronics and computer products that have > ----------------------------------------------------- > > substantial non-infringing uses. I specifically worked for and > > achieved changes to the bill to make sure that no court would > > misinterpret this bill as outlawing legitimate consumer electronics > > devices or computer hardware. As a result, neither section > > 1201(a)(2) nor section 1201(b) should be read as outlawing any > > device with substantial non-infringing uses, as per the tests > > provided in those sections. > > > > If history is a guide, however, someone may yet try to use this > > bill as a basis for initiating litigation to stop legitimate new > > products from coming to market. By proposing the addition of section > > 1201(d)(2) and (3), I have sought to make clear that any such effort > > to use the courts to block the introduction of new technology > > should be bound to fail. > > > > It's amazing how Senator Ashcroft predicted this battle of the MPAA > > to control the player market by preventing the development and > > bringing to market a new product -- a Linux DVD player. > > > > I *think* the reference to "page S4890" refers to H.R. 2281, but I'm not > sure. > > Anyway, all grist for the mill. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 10:52:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA30088 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:52:20 -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 KAA30085 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:52:13 -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; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:55:45 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:55:43 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/24/2001 07:55:44 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 Maybe he should be reminded of his words with "OK put up or shut up" Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 01/24/01 01:32 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 07:59:29PM -0600, Jolley wrote: > I certainly have hope that Attorney General Ashcroft would take a dim > view of what the MPAA is doing and do something to stop them. so, is he already? time to get him involved? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 10:56:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA30147 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:56:02 -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 KAA30144 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:56:00 -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; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:59:31 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] more WIPO material To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:59:29 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/24/2001 07:59:30 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 As my freshman English teacher admonished me; writing "We believe..." doesn't make an valid arguement. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] more WIPO material 01/24/01 01:47 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss that WIPO document I found proves to be a great thing to read. (http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/imp99_3.pdf) for example, I just noticed that it puts a whole page to the "conduct vs. device" question, saying in essence that outlawing murder is "insufficient" and anything that may be used for murder, such as knifes or heavy stones, should be made illegal, too. (p.6) -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 11:09:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30275 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:09:41 -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 LAA30272 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:09:38 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id E191327AEC; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:10:14 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:10:14 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] more WIPO material Message-ID: <20010124171014.B24847@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:59:29AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:59:29AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > As my freshman English teacher admonished me; writing "We believe..." > doesn't make an valid arguement. unfortunately, a valid argument wasn't required in any of the late rounds of taking away your rights. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 11:08:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30262 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:08:54 -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 LAA30259 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:08:52 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 9F55E27AEC; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:09:22 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:09:22 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit Message-ID: <20010124170921.A24847@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 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:55:43AM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:55:43AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Maybe he should be reminded of his words with "OK put up or shut up" that's what I had in mind. it may be beneficial to have a major news outlet on standby which would just LOVE to post a story about how the new attorney general breaks his word within the first week of office... -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 11:10:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30284 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:10:12 -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 LAA30281 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:10:10 -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; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:13:36 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:13:34 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/24/2001 08:13:35 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 may not have wanted to taint him by mentioning UNIX. Remember Kaplan. LINUX was a dirty word since it was the tool of the screaming hoards of hackers who want to rape pillage and plunder the intellecual property of businesses and destroy the world as we know it. Ole Craig To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal arvard.edu Brief of Amici Curiae 01/24/01 06:37 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On 01/24/01 at 07:23, 'twas brillig and John Young scrobe: > > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm > > The amici: > > Harold Abelson > Andrew W. Appel > Dan Boneh > Edward W. Felten > Robert Harper > Andy Hertzfeld > Brian Kernighan > Marvin Minsky > James Morris > P.J. Plauger > James C. Reynolds > Ronald Rivest > Avi Rubin > Barbara Simons > Eugene H. Spafford > Richard Stallman > David S. Touretzky All of these amici are of course very respected, but in particular the names Kernighan, Spafford, Stallman, and Minsky are Names That Resonate across the entire field of endeavours which we casually herd under the rubric of "computer science". I've only just started reading, but I must say I think the introductory "Interests of Amici" section does very little justice (pardon the pun) to the achievements of Brian W. Kernighan: "Dr. Brian Kernighan is a professor in the Computer Science Department at Princeton University. He was until recently head of the Computing Structures Research Department at Bell Labs, where he did research in programming languages, software tools, and user interfaces. He is the co-author of a number of widely-used computer books and programs." This is, to say the least, an understatement of the first water. Kernighan co-authored, with Dennis Ritchie, The C Programming Language (both the language itself and *the* reference work, of the same name) and IIRC also had a primary role in the development of the original UNIX operating system, which is still the core of most server and so-called "enterprise" class computer operating systems today. C and its daughters are probably the most widely-used languages in general computing. IMHO, that's a little like saying "Thurgood Marshall was a Federal Justice and served on the Supreme Court for several years." 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 Wed Jan 24 11:31:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA30690 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:31:40 -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 LAA30529 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:15:55 -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; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:19:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:19:23 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/24/2001 08:19:22 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 Anybody know who at NYTimes or Village Voice is covering the 2600 case? The LATimes is worthless - you'll never see a bad movie review there....and they keep wondering why I don't subscribe to it or the other lamentable paper called the Daily Sneeze by locals. Tom Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF Brief to 2nd Circuit 01/24/01 08:14 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:55:43AM -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Maybe he should be reminded of his words with "OK put up or shut up" that's what I had in mind. it may be beneficial to have a major news outlet on standby which would just LOVE to post a story about how the new attorney general breaks his word within the first week of office... -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 12:06:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31065 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:06:34 -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 MAA31062 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:06:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20010124171006.26960.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:10:06 PST Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:10:06 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae 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 --- Ole Craig wrote: > I've only just started reading, but I must say I think the > introductory "Interests of Amici" section does very little justice > (pardon the pun) to the achievements of Brian W. Kernighan: James sent me an advanced copy a few days ago and I immediately said the exact same thing. Evidently Dr. Kernighan wrote that section himself. The guy is WAY too modest. > IMHO, that's a little like saying "Thurgood Marshall was a > Federal Justice and served on the Supreme Court for several years." It's like saying "Thurgood Marshall was a judge who helped shape some published opinions." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 12:25:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA31393 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:25:57 -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 MAA31390 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:25:55 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa211.pool010.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.81.211]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16725 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:29:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010124090712.00a99cd0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:27:58 -0800 To: From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: References: <200101241232.HAA00324@hall.mail.mindspring.net> 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 09:35 AM 1/24/2001 -0500, Ole Craig wrote: >On 01/24/01 at 07:23, 'twas brillig and John Young scrobe: > > > > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of > > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal > > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm > > I've only just started reading, but I must say I think the >introductory "Interests of Amici" section does very little justice >(pardon the pun) to the achievements of Brian W. Kernighan: > >"Dr. Brian Kernighan is a professor in the Computer Science Department >at Princeton University. He was until recently head of the Computing >Structures Research Department at Bell Labs, where he did research in >programming languages, software tools, and user interfaces. He is the >co-author of a number of widely-used computer books and programs." > > This is, to say the least, an understatement of the first >water. Kernighan co-authored, with Dennis Ritchie, The C Programming >Language (both the language itself and *the* reference work, of the >same name) and IIRC also had a primary role in the development of the >original UNIX operating system, which is still the core of most server >and so-called "enterprise" class computer operating systems today. C >and its daughters are probably the most widely-used languages in >general computing. Heh. Ole, you're not the first to make that observation. I wrote the main body of the brief, but the amici themselves wrote their own descriptions, subject only to minor stylistic editing by me. It was Brian's choice not to include those matters. Also, note towards the end that I have certified a word count of 6998 words. The maximum allowable is 7000, so I did not have a lot to spare. What I did or didn't do to make it fit is a very long subject indeed, but suffice to say that adding any words would have necessitated cutting an equal number of others. If that had not been the case, I might have unilaterally beefed up Brian's description, or asked him if I could. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wed Jan 24 13:12:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA32016 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:12:45 -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 NAA32013 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:12:43 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa211.pool010.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.81.211]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29258 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:16:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010124101111.00bb37d0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:16:29 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: <200101241428.f0OES0b05757@zero.monsters.org> 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 08:28 AM 1/24/2001 -0600, Stephen L Johnson wrote: >On Jan 24, John Young wrote: > > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of > > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal > > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm > >I've been looking over the brief. It is very clear and insightful. I >especially liked the Perl code snippet comparison to legal citations. Touche! I started l-school in '75, but I've never forgotten my reaction the first time I saw a case citation. Something like: "What the HELL is that?" ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wed Jan 24 13:51:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA32510 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:51:35 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA32354 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:30:49 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id NAA13857 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:34:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id NAA09902; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:34:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:34:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101241834.NAA09902@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: <200101241232.HAA00324@hall.mail.mindspring.net> References: <3A6E3701.7B21BB7D@swbell.net> <20010124102807.C385@lemuria.org> <200101241232.HAA00324@hall.mail.mindspring.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu John Young writes: > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm Jim --- very nice work. One brief comment on one of your arguments: We acknowledge that no court has held expressly that a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, be entitled to full First Amendment protection, including strict judicial scrutiny, but the conclusion is ineluctable.(10) I'm not sure this would apply to obscenity --- if a "copyrightable original work of authorship" is obscene, my impression is that it becomes subject to regulation which is otherwise impermissible. But first amendment law is hardly my strong suit... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 15:12:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01361 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:12:31 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA01358 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:12:28 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id PAA27041 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id PAA11181; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:16:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:16:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101242016.PAA11181@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: <200101241834.NAA09902@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> References: <3A6E3701.7B21BB7D@swbell.net> <20010124102807.C385@lemuria.org> <200101241232.HAA00324@hall.mail.mindspring.net> <200101241834.NAA09902@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Robert S. Thau writes: > Jim --- very nice work. One brief comment on one of your arguments: > > We acknowledge that no court has held expressly that a copyrightable > original work of authorship must, necessarily, be entitled to full > First Amendment protection, including strict judicial scrutiny, but > the conclusion is ineluctable.(10) > > I'm not sure this would apply to obscenity --- if a "copyrightable > original work of authorship" is obscene, my impression is that it > becomes subject to regulation which is otherwise impermissible. Errrmmm... to try to render that intelligible: taken literally, your argument that any copyrightable work is entitled to full first amendment protection would seem to apply even if the work is obscene --- but obscene works are entitled to a lesser degree of protection, at least as I understand it. So, I'm not clear what's going on here --- whether obscenity flunks strict scrutiny, or what. > But first amendment law is hardly my strong suit... This remains the case. rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 16:00:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01847 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:00:10 -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 QAA01844 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:00:04 -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; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:02:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:02:37 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/24/2001 01:02:37 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 6998/7000...we could probably spare the egos on the bios. "James S. Tyre" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal arvard.edu Brief of Amici Curiae 01/24/01 09:31 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 09:35 AM 1/24/2001 -0500, Ole Craig wrote: >On 01/24/01 at 07:23, 'twas brillig and John Young scrobe: > > > > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of > > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal > > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: > > > > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm > > I've only just started reading, but I must say I think the >introductory "Interests of Amici" section does very little justice >(pardon the pun) to the achievements of Brian W. Kernighan: > >"Dr. Brian Kernighan is a professor in the Computer Science Department >at Princeton University. He was until recently head of the Computing >Structures Research Department at Bell Labs, where he did research in >programming languages, software tools, and user interfaces. He is the >co-author of a number of widely-used computer books and programs." > > This is, to say the least, an understatement of the first >water. Kernighan co-authored, with Dennis Ritchie, The C Programming >Language (both the language itself and *the* reference work, of the >same name) and IIRC also had a primary role in the development of the >original UNIX operating system, which is still the core of most server >and so-called "enterprise" class computer operating systems today. C >and its daughters are probably the most widely-used languages in >general computing. Heh. Ole, you're not the first to make that observation. I wrote the main body of the brief, but the amici themselves wrote their own descriptions, subject only to minor stylistic editing by me. It was Brian's choice not to include those matters. Also, note towards the end that I have certified a word count of 6998 words. The maximum allowable is 7000, so I did not have a lot to spare. What I did or didn't do to make it fit is a very long subject indeed, but suffice to say that adding any words would have necessitated cutting an equal number of others. If that had not been the case, I might have unilaterally beefed up Brian's description, or asked him if I could. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wed Jan 24 16:11:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01991 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:11:28 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01988 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:11:27 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28727; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:14:18 -0500 Message-Id: <200101242114.QAA28727@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:34:10 EST." <200101241834.NAA09902@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:13:47 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" writes: : John Young writes: : > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of : > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal : > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: : > : > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm : : Jim --- very nice work. One brief comment on one of your arguments: : : We acknowledge that no court has held expressly that a copyrightable : original work of authorship must, necessarily, be entitled to full : First Amendment protection, including strict judicial scrutiny, but : the conclusion is ineluctable.(10) : : I'm not sure this would apply to obscenity --- if a "copyrightable : original work of authorship" is obscene, my impression is that it : becomes subject to regulation which is otherwise impermissible. : : But first amendment law is hardly my strong suit... Material that is allegedly obscene is entitled to full first amendment protection, including strict scrutiny, unless and until it is judicially determined to be obscene. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 17:30:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02945 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:30:58 -0500 Received: from bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu (bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.175.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA02942 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:30:57 -0500 Received: by bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A31217E; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:33:58 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:33:58 -0600 From: Sam TH To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Key Combinations and Kaplan Message-ID: <20010124163358.A17751@uchicago.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm just reading the EFF brief for the first time, and came accross this wonderful bit: "For instance, the District Court analogized the injury due to publication of DeCSS to the publication of a bank vault combination in a national newspaper, indicating that such publication could be restrained. Universal, 111 F.Supp.2d at 315. The District Court, unfortunately, is mistaken. In Chicago Lock v. Fanberg, 676 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1982), the defendant was sued on a trade secret theory for selling books that contained lock key codes that enabled persons to more easily duplicate keys to plaintiff's locks. The Ninth Circuit found that these books could be published because the lock key codes were obtained through reverse engineering." Truly entertaining, as well as powerful. =20 =20 sam th =20 sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: =20 http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6b1hVt+kM0Mq9M/wRAijEAKDSi+Uzs8DnlX0C3xe3u5TAGvpTPgCgv1Pi E8yZWc8uHZs2R15G1j/O9Gc= =VzG4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 17:49:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03106 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:49:58 -0500 Received: from gtei2.bellatlantic.net (gtei2.bellatlantic.net [199.45.40.146]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA03103 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:49:54 -0500 Received: from newmicronpc (adsl-151-202-189-57.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.189.57]) by gtei2.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA23575 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:53:27 -0500 (EST) From: "John Dempsey" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Key Combinations and Kaplan Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:50:11 -0500 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 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010124163358.A17751@uchicago.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu the lock information also benefited the larger lock-and-key services marketplace. broken dvd code means media availability to "unsupported" platforms, and this is a strong benefit to consumers. all from the application of legally-derived information, the right to take apart what you own. one emerging essence of Napster is significant non-infringing uses, and we have them here. -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Sam TH Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 5:34 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Key Combinations and Kaplan I'm just reading the EFF brief for the first time, and came accross this wonderful bit: "For instance, the District Court analogized the injury due to publication of DeCSS to the publication of a bank vault combination in a national newspaper, indicating that such publication could be restrained. Universal, 111 F.Supp.2d at 315. The District Court, unfortunately, is mistaken. In Chicago Lock v. Fanberg, 676 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1982), the defendant was sued on a trade secret theory for selling books that contained lock key codes that enabled persons to more easily duplicate keys to plaintiff's locks. The Ninth Circuit found that these books could be published because the lock key codes were obtained through reverse engineering." Truly entertaining, as well as powerful. sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 19:30:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03678 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:30:09 -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 TAA03675 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:30:07 -0500 Message-ID: <20010125003344.4030.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:33:44 PST Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:33:44 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae 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 --- "Robert S. Thau" wrote: > Jim --- very nice work. One brief comment on one of your arguments: > > We acknowledge that no court has held expressly that a copyrightable > original work of authorship must, necessarily, be entitled to full > First Amendment protection, including strict judicial scrutiny, but > the conclusion is ineluctable.(10) > > I'm not sure this would apply to obscenity --- if a "copyrightable > original work of authorship" is obscene, my impression is that it > becomes subject to regulation which is otherwise impermissible. There is actually a case that says that obscenity may be copyrighted. I think it's from the 5th Circuit. I think this is a good example of "the exception that proves the rule", though. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 20:48:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA04138 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:48:09 -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 UAA04135 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:48:07 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd950067c.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.124]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBD127ABB for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:48:42 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 683AD175182; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:49:25 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:49:25 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae Message-ID: <20010125024924.B1605@lemuria.org> References: <20010125003344.4030.qmail@web509.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: <20010125003344.4030.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 04:33:44PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 04:33:44PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > I'm not sure this would apply to obscenity --- if a "copyrightable > > original work of authorship" is obscene, my impression is that it > > becomes subject to regulation which is otherwise impermissible. > > There is actually a case that says that obscenity may be copyrighted. I think > it's from the 5th Circuit. I think this is a good example of "the exception > that proves the rule", though. I would assume that the question of COPYRIGHT is inconsequential to the question of whether or not I can publish something. e.g. if I write a book that says auschwitz never existed, I'd most surely have the (C) on it, but I still couldn't publish it (at least not here in germany). same with DVDs. I can have the (C) on a DVD's content as much as I want to, in order to get it printed, I'll have to work with someone who has signed the CSS license (I sincerely doubt there are any manufacturers out there who haven't - the equipment is too expensive to open a plant and restrict yourself to what might be a small or even dying market) -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 20:52:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA04252 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:52:46 -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 UAA04249 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:52:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA32138 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:56:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:56:22 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010124090712.00a99cd0@mail.earthlink.net> 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 It does fit in with my rule of thumb: the less a given person says about their accomplishments, the greater they are. Please note I mean BOTH forks of the double entendre: that they're that much greater of a person, and the greater their accomplishments are. On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, James S. Tyre wrote: >At 09:35 AM 1/24/2001 -0500, Ole Craig wrote: >>On 01/24/01 at 07:23, 'twas brillig and John Young scrobe: >> > >> > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of >> > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal >> > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: >> > >> > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm >> >> I've only just started reading, but I must say I think the >>introductory "Interests of Amici" section does very little justice >>(pardon the pun) to the achievements of Brian W. Kernighan: >> >>"Dr. Brian Kernighan is a professor in the Computer Science Department >>at Princeton University. He was until recently head of the Computing >>Structures Research Department at Bell Labs, where he did research in >>programming languages, software tools, and user interfaces. He is the >>co-author of a number of widely-used computer books and programs." >> >> This is, to say the least, an understatement of the first >>water. Kernighan co-authored, with Dennis Ritchie, The C Programming >>Language (both the language itself and *the* reference work, of the >>same name) and IIRC also had a primary role in the development of the >>original UNIX operating system, which is still the core of most server >>and so-called "enterprise" class computer operating systems today. C >>and its daughters are probably the most widely-used languages in >>general computing. > >Heh. Ole, you're not the first to make that observation. I wrote the main >body of the brief, but the amici themselves wrote their own descriptions, >subject only to minor stylistic editing by me. It was Brian's choice not >to include those matters. > >Also, note towards the end that I have certified a word count of 6998 >words. The maximum allowable is 7000, so I did not have a lot to >spare. What I did or didn't do to make it fit is a very long subject >indeed, but suffice to say that adding any words would have necessitated >cutting an equal number of others. If that had not been the case, I might >have unilaterally beefed up Brian's description, or asked him if I could. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 > -- There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 20:52:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA04244 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:52:28 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA04241 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:52:28 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id UAA03904; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:56:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id UAA13424; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:56:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:56:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101250156.UAA13424@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: <200101242114.QAA28727@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200101241834.NAA09902@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <200101242114.QAA28727@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Peter D. Junger writes: > Material that is allegedly obscene is entitled to full first amendment > protection, including strict scrutiny, unless and until it is judicially > determined to be obscene. But it loses that protection once a judge finds it to be obscene --- so there's at least one kind of judicial finding that removes first amendment protection from a copyrighted work. The MPAA would certainly argue that in this case, the judicial finding that a work has certain functional properties should have the same effect. We can certainly argue against that --- and Jim's brief does, at length --- but it still seems to me that the case of obscenity does provide one much-litigated arena where his proposed rule, that "a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, be entitled to full First Amendment protection" doesn't seem to apply... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 21:36:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04611 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:36:30 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (adsl-63-192-8-227.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.192.8.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04608 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:36:28 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id LAA18063 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:20:38 -0800 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:20:38 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae Message-ID: <20010124112037.D7449@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <200101241834.NAA09902@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <200101242114.QAA28727@samsara.law.cwru.edu> <200101250156.UAA13424@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <200101250156.UAA13424@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu>; from rst@ai.mit.edu on Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 08:56:02PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Robert S. Thau writes: > Peter D. Junger writes: > > Material that is allegedly obscene is entitled to full first amendment > > protection, including strict scrutiny, unless and until it is judicially > > determined to be obscene. > > But it loses that protection once a judge finds it to be obscene --- > so there's at least one kind of judicial finding that removes first > amendment protection from a copyrighted work. > > The MPAA would certainly argue that in this case, the judicial finding > that a work has certain functional properties should have the same > effect. We can certainly argue against that --- and Jim's brief does, > at length --- but it still seems to me that the case of obscenity does > provide one much-litigated arena where his proposed rule, that > > "a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, > be entitled to full First Amendment protection" > > doesn't seem to apply... How about the revised version a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, be entitled to "strict scrutiny" protections against state regulation since the point is closer to "all copyrightable materials are expressive" than "all copyrightable materials are necessarily protected expression under current jurisprudence". I admit that the "X is not speech" idea is a very peculiar one to me, as opposed to "X is speech that we decided the state was allowed to censor because ...". In the Bernstein case, the government argued much of the time that computer code is not normally expressive in the way that conventional literary works normally are. Bernstein didn't argue that current first amendment law created a precedent for a complete abolition of government speech restrictions (e.g. overturning _Miller_ and stuff) but that code was entitled to strict scrutiny analysis and that under current precedents he could definitely win the legal right to publish under such analysis. Right? Am I missing something? What we most urgently want to defeat is the argument that code lacks first amendment protections _just because it is code_, or that is doesn't have the protections that would be given to a book or a newspaper or a musical work. And I think that the "copyrightable ---> expression" argument does help there. First amendment absolutism is a project for _next_ year. ;-) -- 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 Wed Jan 24 21:59:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04806 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:59:08 -0500 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (life.ai.mit.edu [128.52.32.80]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04803 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:59:06 -0500 Received: from soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (soggy-fibers [128.52.32.48]) by life.ai.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/AI2.13/ai.master.life:2.21) with ESMTP id WAA08724 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:02:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rst@localhost) by soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.8.4AI/ai.client:1.5) id WAA13565; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:02:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:02:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101250302.WAA13565@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> From: "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: <20010124112037.D7449@cty-alum.org> References: <200101241834.NAA09902@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <200101242114.QAA28727@samsara.law.cwru.edu> <200101250156.UAA13424@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <20010124112037.D7449@cty-alum.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Seth David Schoen writes: > How about the revised version > > a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, > be entitled to "strict scrutiny" protections against state > regulation > > since the point is closer to "all copyrightable materials are expressive" > than "all copyrightable materials are necessarily protected expression > under current jurisprudence". Hmmm... the full version of the quote from Jim's draft was: We acknowledge that no court has held expressly that a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, be entitled to full First Amendment protection, including strict judicial scrutiny, but the conclusion is ineluctable.(10) which is actually pretty close --- particularly if the problem with obscenity is that it flunks strict scrutiny (in which case, Jim's rule would apply to even obscene works, with the caveat that even full first amendment protection goes only so far). > I admit that the "X is not speech" idea is a very peculiar one to me, > as opposed to "X is speech that we decided the state was allowed to > censor because ...". It certainly would seem strange to argue that "obscene speech" is somehow a contradiction in terms... > First amendment absolutism is a project for _next_ year. ;-) I don't know. It certainly seems to be a good year for... novel interpretations of established constitutional doctrines. Or was that last year by now? Sigh... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 24 22:04:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04942 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:04:29 -0500 Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04939 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:04:28 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa211.pool010.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.81.211]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11755 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:08:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010124185344.00aab870@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:08:15 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-Reply-To: <200101250156.UAA13424@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> References: <200101242114.QAA28727@samsara.law.cwru.edu> <200101241834.NAA09902@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> <200101242114.QAA28727@samsara.law.cwru.edu> 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 08:56 PM 1/24/2001 -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: >Peter D. Junger writes: > > Material that is allegedly obscene is entitled to full first amendment > > protection, including strict scrutiny, unless and until it is judicially > > determined to be obscene. > >But it loses that protection once a judge finds it to be obscene --- >so there's at least one kind of judicial finding that removes first >amendment protection from a copyrighted work. > >The MPAA would certainly argue that in this case, the judicial finding >that a work has certain functional properties should have the same >effect. We can certainly argue against that --- and Jim's brief does, >at length --- but it still seems to me that the case of obscenity does >provide one much-litigated arena where his proposed rule, that > > "a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, > be entitled to full First Amendment protection" > >doesn't seem to apply... > >rst No, that's not the argument. Judge Kaplan ruled, on two different bases, that he only had to apply the intermediate level of judicial scrutiny set forth in O'Brien and Turner. (2600 argues that, even under intermediate scrutiny, Judge Kaplan misapplied the test and ruled incorrectly, but that was not the focus of my single-subject brief.) My argument is that the correct legal standard for review, which Judge Kaplan did not use, is what is known as strict judicial scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires a much stronger showing to restrict speech than does intermediate scrutiny, but strict scrutiny (full Fist Amendment protection) does not necessarily mean that the speech is lawful. My argument is that the studios need to pass a much harder test (one I think they can't pass) before they can have their result affirmed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jan 25 09:08:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA08418 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:08:39 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.64.61]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA08415 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:08:35 -0500 Received: from samsara.law.cwru.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by samsara.law.cwru.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA30533; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:11:28 -0500 Message-Id: <200101251411.JAA30533@samsara.law.cwru.edu> To: "Robert S. Thau" cc: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu, junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:56:02 EST." <200101250156.UAA13424@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:10:58 -0500 From: "Peter D. Junger" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "Robert S. Thau" writes: : Peter D. Junger writes: : > Material that is allegedly obscene is entitled to full first amendment : > protection, including strict scrutiny, unless and until it is judicially : > determined to be obscene. : : But it loses that protection once a judge finds it to be obscene --- : so there's at least one kind of judicial finding that removes first : amendment protection from a copyrighted work. : : The MPAA would certainly argue that in this case, the judicial finding : that a work has certain functional properties should have the same : effect. We can certainly argue against that --- and Jim's brief does, : at length --- but it still seems to me that the case of obscenity does : provide one much-litigated arena where his proposed rule, that : : "a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, : be entitled to full First Amendment protection" : : doesn't seem to apply... But that ``judicial finding'' is invalid because of the absence of strict---or, for that matter, any---scrutiny. It is, after all, that finding that is being appealed. (Among other things.) -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara OA.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 25 10:59:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA09065 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:59:37 -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 KAA09062 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:59:30 -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, 25 Jan 2001 08:02:54 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:02:51 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/25/2001 08:02:53 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 Remember what Harry Truman said "conceit is God's gift to little men" John Galt To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal arvard.edu Brief of Amici Curiae 01/24/01 05:57 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss It does fit in with my rule of thumb: the less a given person says about their accomplishments, the greater they are. Please note I mean BOTH forks of the double entendre: that they're that much greater of a person, and the greater their accomplishments are. On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, James S. Tyre wrote: >At 09:35 AM 1/24/2001 -0500, Ole Craig wrote: >>On 01/24/01 at 07:23, 'twas brillig and John Young scrobe: >> > >> > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of >> > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal >> > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: >> > >> > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm >> >> I've only just started reading, but I must say I think the >>introductory "Interests of Amici" section does very little justice >>(pardon the pun) to the achievements of Brian W. Kernighan: >> >>"Dr. Brian Kernighan is a professor in the Computer Science Department >>at Princeton University. He was until recently head of the Computing >>Structures Research Department at Bell Labs, where he did research in >>programming languages, software tools, and user interfaces. He is the >>co-author of a number of widely-used computer books and programs." >> >> This is, to say the least, an understatement of the first >>water. Kernighan co-authored, with Dennis Ritchie, The C Programming >>Language (both the language itself and *the* reference work, of the >>same name) and IIRC also had a primary role in the development of the >>original UNIX operating system, which is still the core of most server >>and so-called "enterprise" class computer operating systems today. C >>and its daughters are probably the most widely-used languages in >>general computing. > >Heh. Ole, you're not the first to make that observation. I wrote the main >body of the brief, but the amici themselves wrote their own descriptions, >subject only to minor stylistic editing by me. It was Brian's choice not >to include those matters. > >Also, note towards the end that I have certified a word count of 6998 >words. The maximum allowable is 7000, so I did not have a lot to >spare. What I did or didn't do to make it fit is a very long subject >indeed, but suffice to say that adding any words would have necessitated >cutting an equal number of others. If that had not been the case, I might >have unilaterally beefed up Brian's description, or asked him if I could. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 > -- There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 25 11:02:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09192 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:02:33 -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 LAA09189 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:02:30 -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, 25 Jan 2001 08:06:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:05:58 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/25/2001 08:05:59 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 As I recall, John Mortimer Q.C. (of Rumpole of the Baily fame) pleaded obscenity cases very successfully by arguing that obscenity had the socially redeeming feature of showing people what should be repugnant to their nature. Without it, how would one ever know what should be repugnant or not....or maybe it was just that the courts tired of dealing with cases of that sorts and were open to ANY argument to dismiss them "Robert S. Thau" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal arvard.edu Brief of Amici Curiae 01/24/01 05:57 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Peter D. Junger writes: > Material that is allegedly obscene is entitled to full first amendment > protection, including strict scrutiny, unless and until it is judicially > determined to be obscene. But it loses that protection once a judge finds it to be obscene --- so there's at least one kind of judicial finding that removes first amendment protection from a copyrighted work. The MPAA would certainly argue that in this case, the judicial finding that a work has certain functional properties should have the same effect. We can certainly argue against that --- and Jim's brief does, at length --- but it still seems to me that the case of obscenity does provide one much-litigated arena where his proposed rule, that "a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, be entitled to full First Amendment protection" doesn't seem to apply... rst From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 25 11:13:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09923 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:13:55 -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 LAA09920 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:13:50 -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, 25 Jan 2001 08:17:21 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:17:18 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/25/2001 08:17:20 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 While I realize that Holme's test has been superseded by more recent legal theories with a finer graduation, I always like his phrase "clear and present danger." In this instance, what is the clear and present danger? NONE. What the MPAA argued was that there may be a possible, future, vague, danger. "James S. Tyre" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal arvard.edu Brief of Amici Curiae 01/24/01 07:09 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 08:56 PM 1/24/2001 -0500, Robert S. Thau wrote: >Peter D. Junger writes: > > Material that is allegedly obscene is entitled to full first amendment > > protection, including strict scrutiny, unless and until it is judicially > > determined to be obscene. > >But it loses that protection once a judge finds it to be obscene --- >so there's at least one kind of judicial finding that removes first >amendment protection from a copyrighted work. > >The MPAA would certainly argue that in this case, the judicial finding >that a work has certain functional properties should have the same >effect. We can certainly argue against that --- and Jim's brief does, >at length --- but it still seems to me that the case of obscenity does >provide one much-litigated arena where his proposed rule, that > > "a copyrightable original work of authorship must, necessarily, > be entitled to full First Amendment protection" > >doesn't seem to apply... > >rst No, that's not the argument. Judge Kaplan ruled, on two different bases, that he only had to apply the intermediate level of judicial scrutiny set forth in O'Brien and Turner. (2600 argues that, even under intermediate scrutiny, Judge Kaplan misapplied the test and ruled incorrectly, but that was not the focus of my single-subject brief.) My argument is that the correct legal standard for review, which Judge Kaplan did not use, is what is known as strict judicial scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires a much stronger showing to restrict speech than does intermediate scrutiny, but strict scrutiny (full Fist Amendment protection) does not necessarily mean that the speech is lawful. My argument is that the studios need to pass a much harder test (one I think they can't pass) before they can have their result affirmed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jan 25 11:55:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10178 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:55:05 -0500 Received: from corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (corb.mc.mpls.visi.com [208.42.156.1]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10175 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:55:02 -0500 Received: from isis.visi.com (isis.visi.com [209.98.98.8]) by corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91E68172 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:57:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (tneu@localhost) by isis.visi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA04546 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:58:40 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: isis.visi.com: tneu owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:58:40 -0600 (CST) From: Tim Neu To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Takedown refusal article on CNET 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 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-4587946-0.html?tag=st.ne.1002.unkn&tag=unkn ISP takes stand in dispute over DVD-cracking code By Lisa M. Bowman Special to CNET News.com January 24, 2001, 11:55 a.m. PT In a move that free-speech activists hope will be trendsetting, Internet service provider Verio is standing up to the movie industry by refusing to remove a Web site the Motion Picture Association of America alleges is illegal. Many ISPs, especially smaller ones that don't have large legal departments, yank sites immediately after receiving threatening letters from content providers to avoid liability. But Verio, a unit of NTT Communications that hosts more than 400,000 Web sites, is raising the bar for site closures by refusing to buckle under MPAA pressure. "That is a little unusual," said Ronald Coolley, an attorney with the Chicago office of Houston-based law firm Arnold White & Durkee. The controversy stems from a letter the MPAA sent to Verio in November, which said John Young, the administrator of the free-speech advocacy site Cryptome, was illegally posting DeCSS, a program that can crack the code protecting copyrighted DVDs, letting people copy or use content for legal or illegal uses. Young denies the charges. The MPAA already has sued several sites for posting the code. In August, a federal judge in New York deemed posting or linking to DeCSS illegal because it violates part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a corporate-backed measure designed to update copyright law in the digital age that some say goes too far by stepping on consumer rights. The case, a major test of the DMCA, is on appeal. In its letter to Verio, the MPAA demanded that the ISP remove the code, citing DMCA violations. Instead of following the MPAA's wishes, Verio sent a letter to Young asking him to answer the charges. On Tuesday, Verio told Young that as long as he complies with its demands "and unless or until we receive notification that the MPAA has filed suit against you, we will not require that you remove the materials, nor will we block access to your site." Young followed Verio's instructions by sending the company a letter saying he did not break the law. A question of liability ISPs have been sparring with copyright holders for years over their roles in policing Internet content. In one of the earliest cases, Netcom bowed to pressure from the Church of Scientology, agreeing to block content posted by a church critic on the grounds that it contained copyrighted material. The case sparked concerns that ISPs could be held liable for content posted on their sites by customers, thus creating an impossible standard by requiring them to review material for potential copyright violations before allowing it to be posted online. In a compromise, lawmakers extended a "safe harbor" to ISPs under the DMCA, provided they respond quickly to so-called takedown notices. As a result, ISPs have come to play a significant role as Internet copyright police. The arrangement means ISPs don't have to review all of the information posted on their sites in advance to avoid libel lawsuits and the like. But some critics of the law say it stacks the deck in favor of copyright holders, giving Web site operators little chance to challenge or appeal takedown orders without undertaking expensive legal action, which can be prohibitive for small publishers. By contrast, Verio's position appears aimed at leveling the playing field. Verio attorney Susan Gindin said the company likes to let the parties resolve the issues on their own rather than getting involved itself. "We are trying to strike a balance, to allow subscribers to speak up before their sites are disabled and to give complainants the right to proceed," she said. Gindin said the company receives about one complaint a day from a copyright holder asking that a site be removed. Many of those are legitimate requests, she said, adding, "We certainly want to assist copyright holders where there's a clear violation." However, she said her company has treated the handful of complaints that have specifically requested a DeCSS takedown in the same manner as the Young case. Customer, activists cheer Verio In an interview, Young said he didn't post DeCSS but did put up a now-sealed court document that contained the code for CSS, the entertainment industry's scrambling system that DeCSS is designed to crack. Though he has had one run-in with the ISP, Young said that for the most part Verio has stood by him in the past, most recently refusing to remove government documents posted on the site even though a British intelligence authority demanded they be taken down. "I think they are sensitive to this issue and don't like these high-handed yanking demands," he said. Young thinks Verio's outlook will be good for business. "Customers are complaining loudly, so they're learning you've got an obligation to your customers," he said. "I think ISPs are going to compete over this." MPAA Director of Legal Affairs Mark Litvack said the organization has not yet been notified of Verio's actions or of Young's response. He said the MPPA will examine the site and Verio's letter before deciding on any course of action. Litvack said the New York judge's decision has given the MPAA extra weight in requesting that sites linking to or posting DeCSS be removed. "We went to court and we had a trial, and the court said in a very convincing opinion that this is wrong and illegal," Litvack said. "Fortunately in this society, most people obey the law." Meanwhile, Verio's refusal to take down the code has free-speech activists cheering. Robin Gross, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is locked in the battle with MPAA over the legality of posting DeCSS, said she often recommends Verio as an ISP that stands up for customers. "They're the only ISP that I know about that doesn't acquiesce," she said, adding that in this case, "the MPAA is just going to have to hold its breath and turn blue." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- What the president of the Motion Picture Association of America says about taking away your constitutional rights: "I'm rather jubilant now. What Judge Kaplan did was blow away every one of these brittle and fragile rebuttals. He threw out fair use; he threw out reverse engineering; he threw out linking." - Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ______ _ __ "If you don't have the freedom to use what you / ' ) ) own - then you do not own anything." / o ______ / / _ . . No apologies to Jack Valenti or the MPAA / <_/ / / < / (_; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:59:17 -0500 Received: from elkornt1.elkor.com ([207.208.143.150]) by ntmail2n.interaccess.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52801U100L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:10:30 -0600 Received: from GABRIELLE ([192.168.1.217]) by elkornt1.elkor.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id DM5YQ9VB; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:04:28 -0600 From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:02:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae Message-ID: <3A7007CB.4291.33BF2C@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010124171006.26960.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> 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 24 Jan 2001, at 9:10, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > --- Ole Craig wrote: > > > I've only just started reading, but I must say I think the > > introductory "Interests of Amici" section does very little justice > > (pardon the pun) to the achievements of Brian W. Kernighan: > > James sent me an advanced copy a few days ago and I immediately said > the exact same thing. Evidently Dr. Kernighan wrote that section > himself. The guy is WAY too modest. Each amicus probably wrote their own WhoIs. Look at the Stallman one, it's clearly in his style, or the style of the GNU site and much of the Debian documentation I've read, which I presume RMS wrote or helped to write. Personally like that style, me. sparky > > > IMHO, that's a little like saying "Thurgood Marshall was a > > Federal Justice and served on the Supreme Court for several years." > > It's like saying "Thurgood Marshall was a judge who helped shape some > published opinions." > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Jan 25 12:17:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10849 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:17:22 -0500 Received: from ntmail2n.interaccess.com (ntmail2n.interaccess.com [207.70.121.239]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA10846 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:17:20 -0500 Received: from elkornt1.elkor.com ([207.208.143.150]) by ntmail2n.interaccess.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52801U100L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:28:32 -0600 Received: from GABRIELLE ([192.168.1.217]) by elkornt1.elkor.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id DM5YQ9VV; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:22:32 -0600 From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:20:37 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MPAA v 2600 - Appeal Brief of Amici Curiae Message-ID: <3A700C05.31427.4442A8@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010124090712.00a99cd0@mail.earthlink.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 On 24 Jan 2001, at 18:56, John Galt wrote: > > It does fit in with my rule of thumb: the less a given person says > about their accomplishments, the greater they are. Please note I mean > BOTH forks of the double entendre: that they're that much greater of a > person, and the greater their accomplishments are. Wow, I guess "they" has really made it as an impersonal singular pronoun. :) I had to think about that for a minute before I noticed. (Not trying to be a grammar troll!) sparky > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, James S. Tyre wrote: > > >At 09:35 AM 1/24/2001 -0500, Ole Craig wrote: > >>On 01/24/01 at 07:23, 'twas brillig and John Young scrobe: > >> > > >> > We offer James Tyre's Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of > >> > 17 cryptographers, professors and scientists, for appeal > >> > of the MPAA v. 2600 judgment: > >> > > >> > http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm > >> > >> I've only just started reading, but I must say I think the > >>introductory "Interests of Amici" section does very little justice > >>(pardon the pun) to the achievements of Brian W. Kernighan: > >> > >>"Dr. Brian Kernighan is a professor in the Computer Science > >>Department at Princeton University. He was until recently head of > >>the Computing Structures Research Department at Bell Labs, where he > >>did research in programming languages, software tools, and user > >>interfaces. He is the co-author of a number of widely-used computer > >>books and programs." > >> > >> This is, to say the least, an understatement of the first > >>water. Kernighan co-authored, with Dennis Ritchie, The C Programming > >>Language (both the language itself and *the* reference work, of the > >>same name) and IIRC also had a primary role in the development of > >>the original UNIX operating system, which is still the core of most > >>server and so-called "enterprise" class computer operating systems > >>today. C and its daughters are probably the most widely-used > >>languages in general computing. > > > >Heh. Ole, you're not the first to make that observation. I wrote > >the main body of the brief, but the amici themselves wrote their own > >descriptions, subject only to minor stylistic editing by me. It was > >Brian's choice not to include those matters. > > > >Also, note towards the end that I have certified a word count of 6998 > >words. The maximum allowable is 7000, so I did not have a lot to > >spare. What I did or didn't do to make it fit is a very long subject > >indeed, but suffice to say that adding any words would have > >necessitated cutting an equal number of others. If that had not been > >the case, I might have unilaterally beefed up Brian's description, or > >asked him if I could. > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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 > > > > -- > There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million > keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare > would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. > > Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 16:10:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA22628 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:10:36 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA22625 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:10:34 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f0QLDbf08474 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:13:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A71E895.61A9A352@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:13:57 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET References: <4.2.2.20010126152957.02e36a70@pop.bellatlantic.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 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4615695.html?tag=lh "There looms the onrush of a collision between copyright rooted in the Constitution...and the rowdy, assertive babble of those who are determined to shrink and possibly exile the concept of copyright in order to grab creative material without paying for it," Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a speech Monday. "I urge the Congress and the public to ever remember the huge benefits to the nation's economy offered by the copyright industries." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 16:54:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA23173 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:54:01 -0500 Received: from natsemi-bh.nsc.com (natsemi-bh.nsc.com [204.163.202.66]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23170 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:53:58 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id NAA12207 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:57:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from scnt-wsec1.nsc.com(139.187.1.16) by natsemi-bh.nsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma011681; Fri, 26 Jan 01 13:56:11 -0800 Received: from 147.5.200.40 by scnt-wsec1.nsc.com with SMTP (NSC MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:57:28 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 305674a2-aa00-11d4-b160-00d0b746c3d9 Received: from ball by ia.nsc.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02733; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:56:10 -0700 (MST) From: "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Ranting and humor about: RE: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:04:50 -0700 Message-ID: <000c01c087e4$00b614c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <3A71E895.61A9A352@mindspring.com> X-WSS-ID: 166F2D4223048-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Two parts (a) "Infinite Digital Reproducibility" Lehman agrees up to a point. But he says that in the real world, where real artists have to make a living, something had to be done about the well-recognized ease of making infinite digital copies. Copyrights have never been about "how easy" it is to copy. In fact the whole concept of copyright is founded on the concept that copying is easy. If copying were hard, there would be no need for copyright law. The law assumes that copying is easy enough that it must be proscribed with strong sanction to prevent it. Copying has alway had the same ease of operation as publishing. Sure in the 1800's you had to set type by hand to pirate... but you had to set type by hand to publish. Sure you can pirate a CD on a burner for $1.00 -- for that you can publish 2. Copyright has to do with the "right to copy." This right to copy has a long established tradition embracing both commericial and private rights -- the latter codify in first sale and fair use. I've had it up to here with "infinite digital reproducibility" -- give me a state of the art PC with a audio/video capture/compression card (or a professional workstation) and I can infinitely reproduce ANY content. VHS tapes, analog outputs from a Laser or DVD player, anything. Anbody other than me digitizing their LP's. This is pure smoke and we need to call these guys on it EVERY time we see it. (b) Jack Valenti annotated: (just had to have some fun with this...) > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4615695.html?tag=lh > > "I urge the Congress and Hey, you guys. Honest politicians stay bought. > the public to ever Relax, I have your dose of Soma right here. The most important thing is that you be entertained. If it weren't for bread and circuses, would Rome risen to as great a height? > remember the huge benefits to the nation's Suuure inventions only get 20 years patent protection, but what's more valuable Tylenol, or "Land Before Time VII." (I'm not kidding VII! -- jz) "Lethal Weapon IV" should clearly be granted 5 times the protection of some multi-billion dollar development of a new anti-cancer medication. The invention "Ginger" might be bigger than the web, but Gilligan and Mary-Ann should be preserved for the next millenia. Mickey Mouse, he should be protected forever (minus one day). Think of what would happen if Disney lost that, they'd have to create something new and that might promote progress ... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I AM THE GREAT AND MIGHT WIZARD OF MPAA!!! > economy offered by the copyright industries." Look we've been able to sell products with a 7500% gross margin ($15 dollar CD which cost $.50 to make) and you suckers^Wcustomers keep paying it. If your a stockholder, how can that be bad? >From the musical "Lil' Abner" "He makes the rules and he intends to keep it that-a-way What's good for General Bullmoose Is good for the U S A" Keep up the good fight. John Zulauf private netizen PS. Anbody notice my "consent" vs. "authority" reasoning mirrored in the appeal brief -- cool! I saw a lot of other stuff that looked much like our discussions here. Robin/Wendy, do you know if the defense team consciously drew on the material here on OpenDVD? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 17:01:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23334 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:01:20 -0500 Received: from bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu (bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu [128.135.175.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA23331 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:01:19 -0500 Received: by bur-jud-175-135.rh.uchicago.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8A6F96EE; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:04:11 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:04:11 -0600 From: Sam TH To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Ranting and humor about: RE: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET Message-ID: <20010126160411.B23622@uchicago.edu> References: <3A71E895.61A9A352@mindspring.com> <000c01c087e4$00b614c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <000c01c087e4$00b614c0$87ce0593@ia.nsc.com>; from johnzu@ia.nsc.com on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 03:04:50PM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 03:04:50PM -0700, John Zulauf wrote: >=20 > PS. Anbody notice my "consent" vs. "authority" reasoning mirrored in the > appeal brief -- cool! I saw a lot of other stuff that looked much like o= ur > discussions here. Robin/Wendy, do you know if the defense team conscious= ly > drew on the material here on OpenDVD? >=20 Well, the authority stuff looked a lot like stuff we discussed here. And I know that I posted the reference to the Weaving the Web quote. So I guess so. =20 sam th =20 sam@uchicago.edu http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ GnuPG Key: =20 http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key --yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6cfRbt+kM0Mq9M/wRAmowAJ4yOSX2JkC52X6qvVg5Tsk9S5T4lwCfRtfm kWA8g4DVJxV2soP5fA6dde0= =SPVA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --yNb1oOkm5a9FJOVX-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 17:21:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23553 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:21:01 -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 RAA23550 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:21:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20010126222443.25814.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:24:43 PST Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:24:43 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET 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 "There looms the onrush of a collision between copyright rooted in the Constitution...and the rowdy, assertive babble of those who are determined to shrink and possibly exile the concept of copyright in order to grab creative material without paying for it," Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a speech Monday. "I urge the Congress and the public to ever remember the huge benefits to the nation's economy offered by the copyright industries." Mr. Valenti is refuted by Justice O'Connor, who wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co (1991): "It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not "some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme." Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 589 (dissenting opinion). It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," ibid. and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Art. I, 8, cl. 8. Accord, Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, (1975). To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 18:18:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA23881 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:18:43 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA23878 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:18:31 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA05426 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:26:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:26:23 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET Message-ID: <20010126182623.B5111@eldritchpress.org> References: <4.2.2.20010126152957.02e36a70@pop.bellatlantic.net> <3A71E895.61A9A352@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A71E895.61A9A352@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 04:13:57PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu still again journalists try to overdramatize the story by setting up two straw men, the big publishers versus the "hackers" who are supposed to agree on the slogan "information wants to be free." of course the article completely ignores the difference between "free software" as in fsf, and "free" as in you don't have to pay, as in napster. and it assumes that strong copy protection has always been that way in the law and the technology, and publishers are only defending their rights. it seems that bruce lehman and the publishers for which he lobbies now realize that artists and authors and the creators are unreliable to represent their views, so a new group needs to be set up, to appear to speak for the authors, but in reality to push corporate interests, and defend their hard-bought legislation. i agree with eben moglen that the public is learning rapidly what is going on. aside from continuing the legal battles, we now need to join forces in a sort of political way. we need to have some talking points, and agree what to say to reporters who are powerful but willfully uninformed. they have the money to do a professional job --we are, however, in possession of the right, and we only need to bring together the many smart people who are concerned about these issues. we will win. On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 04:13:57PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4615695.html?tag=lh > > "There looms the onrush of a collision between copyright rooted in the > Constitution...and the > rowdy, assertive babble of those who are determined to shrink and possibly exile > the concept > of copyright in order to grab creative material without paying for it," Jack > Valenti, president of > the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a speech Monday. "I urge the > Congress and > the public to ever remember the huge benefits to the nation's economy offered by > the copyright > industries." > > > -- "Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 18:21:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA23993 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:21:59 -0500 Received: from mail02-oak.pilot.net (mail-oak-2.pilot.net [198.232.147.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA23805 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:59:05 -0500 Received: from msd-gw.hitachi.com (msd.hitachi.com [206.189.5.161]) by mail02-oak.pilot.net with ESMTP id PAA14971 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:02:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from hicam-msd.hitachi.com (thunder [137.168.16.3]) by msd-gw.hitachi.com with ESMTP id OAA26543 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from karsten.hicam-msd.hitachi.com (karsten [137.168.48.210]) by hicam-msd.hitachi.com with ESMTP id OAA27172 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:56:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by karsten.hicam-msd.hitachi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:59:11 -0800 Message-ID: From: Steve Benedict To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:59:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The quotation from Justice O'Connor continues: "This principle, known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to all works of authorship. As applied to a factual compilation, assuming the absence of original written expression, only the compiler's selection and arrangement may be protected; the raw facts may be copied at will. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art." -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Taylor [mailto:bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:25 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET "There looms the onrush of a collision between copyright rooted in the Constitution...and the rowdy, assertive babble of those who are determined to shrink and possibly exile the concept of copyright in order to grab creative material without paying for it," Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a speech Monday. "I urge the Congress and the public to ever remember the huge benefits to the nation's economy offered by the copyright industries." Mr. Valenti is refuted by Justice O'Connor, who wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co (1991): "It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not "some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme." Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 589 (dissenting opinion). It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," ibid. and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Art. I, 8, cl. 8. Accord, Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, (1975). To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 18:30:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24113 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:30:20 -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 SAA24110 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:30:19 -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 RAA04492 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:34:02 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A7209C7.1AC91E1C@uic.edu> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:35:35 -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] Article on CNET 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 looms the onrush of a collision between copyright rooted in > the Constitution...and the rowdy, assertive babble of those who are > determined to shrink and possibly exile the concept of copyright in > order to grab creative material without paying for it," Jack Valenti Of course, if expansion of copyright (the MPAA & RIAA agenda) is fair game, then so is contraction and/or elimination of copyright. Something he should not forget. Since the Apple II days (the 1970s, as far as my experience goes back), every time copy protection has been introduced into the market, it has invariably failed, and been eliminated, either by technical means, or by market means. If the copyright industry succeeds in inextricably comingling copyright and copy protection, as in SDMI, and convincing the public that they are one and the same, they run the very real risk that the public will begin to see copyright itself as coercive and unnecessary as copy protection -- fair game for elimination, both technically and legally. The problem with copy protection isn't that it "keeps honest people honest." The problem with copy protection is that it insults and disrespects honest people. Similarly, laws like the DMCA don't "keep honest people honest." Instead, they insult and disrespect honest people. People who want to use an open source DVD player to watch DVDs that they have purchased, for instance, only to be told that they must watch their DVDs on a monopoly-controlled, crippled player, "to keep them honest." Copyright cannot survive without popular support, without people feeling that respecting copyright is the right thing to do. Valenti and his like appear to be hell bent on changing copyright from what it used to be -- a voluntary social contract -- into a form of hated coercion against the general public. If copyright is perceived by the general public as nothing more than a form of hated coercion, it will not survive. The copyright industry is making their own bed ... From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 19:30:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA24550 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:30:50 -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 TAA24547 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:30:48 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5f9.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.249]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F9527ABB for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:31:18 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B89EB175195; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:32:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:32:04 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET Message-ID: <20010127013204.B4065@lemuria.org> References: <20010126222443.25814.qmail@web509.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: <20010126222443.25814.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 02:24:43PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 02:24:43PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > Mr. Valenti is refuted by Justice O'Connor, who wrote for a unanimous > Supreme Court in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co (1991): to be honest, your observation ain't worth shit, because jackboot valenti posts his trollings on CNET and you post only on a small mailing list. see, he may be an asshole, and he definitely deserves to be shot, but he's not stupid. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 19:34:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA25347 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:34:55 -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 TAA25344 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:34:54 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3ee2d5f9.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.249]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3889227ABB for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:35:30 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3843A175195; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:36:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:36:17 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET Message-ID: <20010127013616.C4065@lemuria.org> References: <3A7209C7.1AC91E1C@uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A7209C7.1AC91E1C@uic.edu>; from jms@uic.edu on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:35:35PM -0600 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:35:35PM -0600, John Schulien wrote: > The problem with copy protection isn't that it "keeps honest people > honest." The problem with copy protection is that it insults and > disrespects honest people. Similarly, laws like the DMCA don't > "keep honest people honest." Instead, they insult and disrespect > honest people. if you treat everyone like a criminal, you shouldn't be surprised if more and more of them feel and behave that way. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 28 08:49:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA03034 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:49:29 -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 IAA03031 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:49:27 -0500 Received: from jy01 (user-2iniint.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.74.253]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA26820 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:53:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101281353.IAA26820@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:45:03 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: [dvd-discuss] Cryptographers Amici Briefs In-Reply-To: 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 For appeal of the MPAA v. 2600 decision: Brief Amici Curiae of Steven Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Dan Boneh, Dave Del Torto, Ian Goldberg, Bruce Schneier, Frank Andrew Stevenson, David Wagner: http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2001/0126-crypto-amicus.txt Brief Amicus Curiae of Arnold Reinhold: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-agr.htm From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Jan 28 22:57:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA08138 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:57:48 -0500 Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08135 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:57:45 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld6u6.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.155.198]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA04693 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:01:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A74EB12.63BBE0EC@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:01:22 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Miramax releasing an internet movie References: <200101281353.IAA26820@maynard.mail.mindspring.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 http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010117/tc/miramax_internet_1.html The digital version of ``Guinevere'' will play on home computers full-screen in near-DVD quality, Sander said. The movie can be found on three Web sites beginning Jan. 22. After the license expires, the downloaded file will be useless. A copy of the movie sent via e-mail or copied to a mobile storage device also will not play, even with a valid license. ``There's all this fear and loathing in Hollywood of the Internet,'' Sander said. ``Miramax chairmen Bob and Harvey Weinstein have stepped up to the plate and decided to provide some leadership and say, essentially, 'We're going to fight fire with fire. If this is how people want to get movies, we're going to give it to them legit.''' Also says that it costs $3.49 for a 24-hour access life. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 03:23:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA08940 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 03:23:44 -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 DAA08937 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 03:23:41 -0500 Received: from leopard (nw3-105.world-net.co.nz [202.37.68.105]) by mail.world-net.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06054 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:21:58 +1300 From: "Daniel Richards" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:23:06 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Miramax releasing an internet movie Message-ID: <3A75DF3A.27448.45CD319@localhost> In-reply-to: <3A74EB12.63BBE0EC@mindspring.com> X-PM-Encryptor: IDWPGP-PM32, 4 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 28 Jan 2001, at 23:01, mickeym wrote: > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010117/tc/miramax_internet_1.html > > > The digital version of ``Guinevere'' will play on home computers > full-screen in near-DVD quality, Sander said. The movie can be found on > three Web sites beginning Jan. 22. After the license expires, the > downloaded file will be useless. A copy of the movie sent via e-mail or > copied to a mobile storage device also will not play, even with a valid > license. ``There's all this fear and loathing in Hollywood of the > Internet,'' Sander said. ``Miramax chairmen Bob and Harvey Weinstein > have stepped up to the plate and decided to provide some leadership and > say, essentially, 'We're going to fight fire with fire. If this is how > people want to get movies, we're going to give it to them legit.''' > Sounds fun, what video/audio codec are they going to use? What player are they going to use? Is it just going to be MPEG4/etc codecs just encrypted and then played back or something with their player? Pay per view? this won't work, just like the original DIVX and you just know it won't last a month before it's cracked and lawsuits begin. Ah well. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: N/A iQA/AwUBOnR/qzjFnKpkvcbxEQJ6OwCgjS5zfB87+n898JCPW95jQCDzo7EAnArG dhf2pCGeMdB9d8FS5xMDtx7O =rRWd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Daniel Richards - http://leopard.osoal.org.nz/ PGP Pub key: http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DanielRPubKey.asc Fingerprint: 4F09 7B12 03F9 10BD 688A 1D6F 38C5 9CAA 64BD C6F1 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 05:04:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA09619 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:04:19 -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 FAA09616 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:04:16 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3e9bbb26.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.38]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0214727AEA for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:04:35 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2608C175195; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:05:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:05:27 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Miramax releasing an internet movie Message-ID: <20010129110526.F14631@lemuria.org> References: <3A74EB12.63BBE0EC@mindspring.com> <3A75DF3A.27448.45CD319@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A75DF3A.27448.45CD319@localhost>; from kyhwana@world-net.co.nz on Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:23:06PM +1300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:23:06PM +1300, Daniel Richards wrote: > Pay per view? this won't work, just like the original DIVX and you > just know it won't last a month before it's cracked and lawsuits > begin. Ah well. exactly. and then the movie mafia has a display case of "hey, we *tried* to play it nicely, but the evil hackers..." -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 06:59:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA09964 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:59:43 -0500 Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA09961 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:59:37 -0500 Received: from proton ([63.195.90.12]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0G7X005SEANKBE@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 03:59:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 04:04:20 -0800 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dr. Dobbs makes fair use of X-men. In-reply-to: <20010129110526.F14631@lemuria.org> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0G7X005SFANKBE@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3A75DF3A.27448.45CD319@localhost>; from kyhwana@world-net.co.nz on Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:23:06PM +1300 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I don't know if this is of any help, but it appears as though the desire to exercise "fair use" has made it to established media: http://www.ddj.com/maillists/compression/0101cm/do200101cm01.avi That's Dr. Dobbs. I didn't notice a "Used with permission by ..." just a copyright message. The quality looks at the level of VHS or NTSC, but don't have any tell tale signs (crawling scanlines) of either of those. I have sent off the author a letter asking if he started with DVD, in which case his example of fair use may be useful to the defence. So, do you think this might be useful? -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 08:18:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA10178 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:18:06 -0500 Received: from odin.funcom.com (odin.funcom.com [193.71.100.3]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10175 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:17:56 -0500 Received: from odin ([193.71.100.3]) by odin.funcom.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14NEFZ-0005C8-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:21:41 +0100 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:21:41 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson X-Sender: frank@odin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs In-Reply-To: <0G7X005SFANKBE@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> 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 EFF has a new (Jan 26) press release on their site: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_eff_pressrel.html Diverse Groups Unite to Defend Freedom of Expression Against DMCA NEW YORK: Eight Amici or "friend of the court" briefs were filed today in support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's appeal of an injunction against 2600 Magazine, which banned the media site from publishing and linking to information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) last August. The press release has numerous links to the amici. Ex: Amicus Brief Sponsors: Numerous expert law professors http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_lawprofs_amicus.html Conclusion. The DMCA's anti-device provisions lack constitutional mooring, and may not be invoked to bar appellants, or anyone else, from reproducing, distributing, or linking to DeCSS. If Congress wishes to afford protection for "technological measures" applied to protect copyrighted works beyond that which copyright law already affords, it must return to the drawing board. frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84) I enjoy coffee, and support cafe: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 09:39:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA10591 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:39:26 -0500 Received: from mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (mail.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.160.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA10588 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:39:21 -0500 Received: from mindspring.com (mmcgown.glenatl.glenayre.com [157.230.162.136]) by mail.glenatl.glenayre.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f0TEg1f25435 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:42:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A75812F.7F13AA37@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:41:51 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Miramax releasing an internet movie References: <3A74EB12.63BBE0EC@mindspring.com> <3A75DF3A.27448.45CD319@localhost> <20010129110526.F14631@lemuria.org> 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 It just so happens that my S.O. is taking her accounting class, and came across the topic of copyright in the eyes of an accountant. This is what her textbook ("Financial Accounting:Tools for Business Decision Making", 2nd edition, Kimmel, Weygandt, Kieso, (c)2000) has to say about it: "Copyrights are granted by the federal government, giving the owner the exclusive right to reproduce and sell an artisitic or published work. Copyrights extend for the life of the creator plus 50 years. The cost of the copyright consists of the cost of aquiring and defending it. The cost may be only the $10 fee paid to the U.S. Copyright Office, or it may amount to a great deal more if a copyright infringment suit is involved. The useful life of a copyright generally is significantly shorter than its legal life." Further, it says, "Cost consists of all expenditures necessary to aquire the asset and make it ready for its intended use. Intangible assets are recorded at cost, and this cost is expensed over the useful life of the intangible asset in a rational and systematic manner." So, if the cost of the copyright is an asset, then all of the costs that the content providers expend, in what we would call wasted effort, are actually contributing towards their bottom line. You can see the size of some the figures at: http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/d/dis.html http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/t/twx.html mickeym Tom wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:23:06PM +1300, Daniel Richards wrote: > > Pay per view? this won't work, just like the original DIVX and you > > just know it won't last a month before it's cracked and lawsuits > > begin. Ah well. > > exactly. and then the movie mafia has a display case of "hey, we > *tried* to play it nicely, but the evil hackers..." > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 11:06:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11255 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:06:33 -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 LAA11251 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:06:27 -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, 29 Jan 2001 08:10:08 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:10:06 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/29/2001 08:10:08 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 Of course he says NOTHING about them giving up their copyrights at the end of their term. mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET arvard.edu 01/26/01 01:17 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4615695.html?tag=lh "There looms the onrush of a collision between copyright rooted in the Constitution...and the rowdy, assertive babble of those who are determined to shrink and possibly exile the concept of copyright in order to grab creative material without paying for it," Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a speech Monday. "I urge the Congress and the public to ever remember the huge benefits to the nation's economy offered by the copyright industries." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 11:09:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11329 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:09:47 -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 LAA11324 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:09:43 -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; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:13:26 -0800 Subject: Re: Ranting and humor about: RE: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:13:25 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/29/2001 08:13:26 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 Agreed. These people don't seem to understand that the ease of copying is irrelevant. Offset lithography is alot faster than hand set type... "John Zulauf" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Ranting and humor about: RE: arvard.edu [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET 01/26/01 01:59 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Two parts (a) "Infinite Digital Reproducibility" Lehman agrees up to a point. But he says that in the real world, where real artists have to make a living, something had to be done about the well-recognized ease of making infinite digital copies. Copyrights have never been about "how easy" it is to copy. In fact the whole concept of copyright is founded on the concept that copying is easy. If copying were hard, there would be no need for copyright law. The law assumes that copying is easy enough that it must be proscribed with strong sanction to prevent it. Copying has alway had the same ease of operation as publishing. Sure in the 1800's you had to set type by hand to pirate... but you had to set type by hand to publish. Sure you can pirate a CD on a burner for $1.00 -- for that you can publish 2. Copyright has to do with the "right to copy." This right to copy has a long established tradition embracing both commericial and private rights -- the latter codify in first sale and fair use. I've had it up to here with "infinite digital reproducibility" -- give me a state of the art PC with a audio/video capture/compression card (or a professional workstation) and I can infinitely reproduce ANY content. VHS tapes, analog outputs from a Laser or DVD player, anything. Anbody other than me digitizing their LP's. This is pure smoke and we need to call these guys on it EVERY time we see it. (b) Jack Valenti annotated: (just had to have some fun with this...) > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4615695.html?tag=lh > > "I urge the Congress and Hey, you guys. Honest politicians stay bought. > the public to ever Relax, I have your dose of Soma right here. The most important thing is that you be entertained. If it weren't for bread and circuses, would Rome risen to as great a height? > remember the huge benefits to the nation's Suuure inventions only get 20 years patent protection, but what's more valuable Tylenol, or "Land Before Time VII." (I'm not kidding VII! -- jz) "Lethal Weapon IV" should clearly be granted 5 times the protection of some multi-billion dollar development of a new anti-cancer medication. The invention "Ginger" might be bigger than the web, but Gilligan and Mary-Ann should be preserved for the next millenia. Mickey Mouse, he should be protected forever (minus one day). Think of what would happen if Disney lost that, they'd have to create something new and that might promote progress ... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I AM THE GREAT AND MIGHT WIZARD OF MPAA!!! > economy offered by the copyright industries." Look we've been able to sell products with a 7500% gross margin ($15 dollar CD which cost $.50 to make) and you suckers^Wcustomers keep paying it. If your a stockholder, how can that be bad? >From the musical "Lil' Abner" "He makes the rules and he intends to keep it that-a-way What's good for General Bullmoose Is good for the U S A" Keep up the good fight. John Zulauf private netizen PS. Anbody notice my "consent" vs. "authority" reasoning mirrored in the appeal brief -- cool! I saw a lot of other stuff that looked much like our discussions here. Robin/Wendy, do you know if the defense team consciously drew on the material here on OpenDVD? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 11:22:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11502 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:22:54 -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 LAA11498 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:22:22 -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, 29 Jan 2001 08:25:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:25:57 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/29/2001 08:25:58 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 Kaplan too didn't understand the difference between free software and free. Actually, I realized this weekend that when I started using computers (23yrs ago..sigh) other than the OS and compilers just about everyting else was free. People gave away software they had written (and still do as shareware or freeware). I guess that's foreign to Kaplan and Lehman. Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Article on CNET arvard.edu 01/26/01 03:24 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss still again journalists try to overdramatize the story by setting up two straw men, the big publishers versus the "hackers" who are supposed to agree on the slogan "information wants to be free." of course the article completely ignores the difference between "free software" as in fsf, and "free" as in you don't have to pay, as in napster. and it assumes that strong copy protection has always been that way in the law and the technology, and publishers are only defending their rights. it seems that bruce lehman and the publishers for which he lobbies now realize that artists and authors and the creators are unreliable to represent their views, so a new group needs to be set up, to appear to speak for the authors, but in reality to push corporate interests, and defend their hard-bought legislation. i agree with eben moglen that the public is learning rapidly what is going on. aside from continuing the legal battles, we now need to join forces in a sort of political way. we need to have some talking points, and agree what to say to reporters who are powerful but willfully uninformed. they have the money to do a professional job --we are, however, in possession of the right, and we only need to bring together the many smart people who are concerned about these issues. we will win. On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 04:13:57PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4615695.html?tag=lh > > "There looms the onrush of a collision between copyright rooted in the > Constitution...and the > rowdy, assertive babble of those who are determined to shrink and possibly exile > the concept > of copyright in order to grab creative material without paying for it," Jack > Valenti, president of > the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a speech Monday. "I urge the > Congress and > the public to ever remember the huge benefits to the nation's economy offered by > the copyright > industries." > > > -- "Eric" Eric Eldred Eldritch Press mailto:Eldred@EldritchPress.org http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 11:27:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11616 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:27:45 -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 LAA11613 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:27:41 -0500 Message-ID: <20010129163124.2838.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:31:24 PST Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:31:24 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs 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 > The press release has numerous links to the amici. Ex: > Amicus Brief Sponsors: Numerous expert law professors > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_lawprofs_amicus.html This brief is THE BOMB. Ouch. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 11:34:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA11733 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:34:45 -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 LAA11730 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:34:41 -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, 29 Jan 2001 08:38:28 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Miramax releasing an internet movie To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:38:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/29/2001 08:38:28 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 I suppose he doesn't know that clocks and the state of any computer can be reset. mickeym To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] Miramax releasing an arvard.edu internet movie 01/28/01 08:04 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010117/tc/miramax_internet_1.html The digital version of ``Guinevere'' will play on home computers full-screen in near-DVD quality, Sander said. The movie can be found on three Web sites beginning Jan. 22. After the license expires, the downloaded file will be useless. A copy of the movie sent via e-mail or copied to a mobile storage device also will not play, even with a valid license. ``There's all this fear and loathing in Hollywood of the Internet,'' Sander said. ``Miramax chairmen Bob and Harvey Weinstein have stepped up to the plate and decided to provide some leadership and say, essentially, 'We're going to fight fire with fire. If this is how people want to get movies, we're going to give it to them legit.''' Also says that it costs $3.49 for a 24-hour access life. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 13:13:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA12773 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:13:05 -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 NAA12770 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:13:02 -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, 29 Jan 2001 10:16:39 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:16:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/29/2001 10:16:39 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 Well the list of names is quite impressive...If nothing else, it may help stem the public perceptions and media hype that the whole problem here is cause by those hoards of hackers intent upon ravishing the studio's intellectual property. The "man on the street", is pretty indifferen to intellectual property discussions but tell him that a bunch of people want to make it so he can't talk about something and that's something he can understand and get outraged. Bryan Taylor To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs arvard.edu 01/29/01 09:04 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss > The press release has numerous links to the amici. Ex: > Amicus Brief Sponsors: Numerous expert law professors > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_lawprofs_amicus.html This brief is THE BOMB. Ouch. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 14:42:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA14284 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:42:03 -0500 Received: from VL-MS-MR002.sc1.videotron.ca (mail@relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13165 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:55:04 -0500 Received: from videotron.ca ([24.203.83.80]) by VL-MS-MR002.sc1.videotron.ca (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id G7XTVN03.H14 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:54:59 -0500 Message-ID: <3A75BB01.6D297626@videotron.ca> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:48:33 -0500 From: Dan Steinberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs 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 ...anyone know why Jonathan Zittrain's name is just listed as 'professor' with no affiliation? looks kinda silly, sticking out like he's homeless or something. Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > Well the list of names is quite impressive...If nothing else, it may help > stem the public perceptions and media hype that the whole problem here is > cause by those hoards of hackers intent upon ravishing the studio's > intellectual property. The "man on the street", is pretty indifferen to > intellectual property discussions but tell him that a bunch of people want > to make it so he can't talk about something and that's something he can > understand and get outraged. > > > Bryan Taylor > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Sent by: cc: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs > arvard.edu > > > 01/29/01 09:04 AM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > > The press release has numerous links to the amici. Ex: > > Amicus Brief Sponsors: Numerous expert law professors > > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_lawprofs_amicus.html > > This brief is THE BOMB. Ouch. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ -- Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@vrx.net From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 16:03:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA16020 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:03:32 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA16017 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:03:31 -0500 Received: by MERCURY with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:06:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:06:47 -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 didn't know Mr. Tyre could file a brief, I thought that you had to be a second circuit member to file one in this case...did the court make exceptions or am I incorrect? You know, without procedures, there would be no law. (Good work, and much gratitude for your help, by the way) -----Original Message----- From: James S. Tyre [mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 9:57 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? A little birdie tells me that this subject may be addressed at some length in the so-called computer scientists' amicus brief in support of 2600. Since I wrote the brief, I believe that I am correctly compiling what the little birdie told me. Went out today by FedEx, will be filed with the Court and received by counsel tomorrow, expect to see it soon on a web site near you. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 16:23:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA16824 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:23:19 -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 QAA16821 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:23:17 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa218.pool011.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.82.218]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18867 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:27:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010129132103.00bd7d40@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:27:17 -0800 To: From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 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 04:06 PM 1/29/2001 -0500, Leland Ray wrote: >? > >I didn't know Mr. Tyre could file a brief, I thought >that you had to be a second circuit member to file one >in this case...did the court make exceptions or am I >incorrect? Any lawyer can file an amicus brief. One needs to be admitted to the Second Circuit only if one is representing a party to the action, or if one is going to argue the matter orally before the court. There had been confusion about this, but it got cleared up before the various amicus briefs were filed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 17:43:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18420 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:43:52 -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 RAA18417 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:43:49 -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, 29 Jan 2001 14:47:26 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:47:24 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/29/2001 02:47:26 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 It's rather interesting that lawyers file amicus curiae briefs as "friends of the court" yet they are already "officers of the court". For my own information, the bar exam and licensing is by each state with reciprocity between many of the states. How do the Federal courts determine who can and cannot argue before them? "James S. Tyre" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or arvard.edu Conduct? 01/29/01 01:44 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 04:06 PM 1/29/2001 -0500, Leland Ray wrote: >? > >I didn't know Mr. Tyre could file a brief, I thought >that you had to be a second circuit member to file one >in this case...did the court make exceptions or am I >incorrect? Any lawyer can file an amicus brief. One needs to be admitted to the Second Circuit only if one is representing a party to the action, or if one is going to argue the matter orally before the court. There had been confusion about this, but it got cleared up before the various amicus briefs were filed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Jan 29 21:38:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA19740 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:38:23 -0500 Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA19737 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:38:18 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa218.pool011.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.82.218]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24843 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:42:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010129181041.0539d480@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jstyre@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:42:01 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? 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 02:47 PM 1/29/2001 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >It's rather interesting that lawyers file amicus curiae briefs as "friends >of the court" yet they are already "officers of the court". True, but normally, they're filing them on behalf of clients. I wrote one of the amicus briefs, but the amici are the 17 people on behalf of whom I wrote it. (Once, in the California Supreme Court, I both wrote an amicus solely on my own behalf and argued the case orally, but that is unusual.) >For my own information, the bar exam and licensing is by each state with >reciprocity between many of the states. How do the Federal courts determine >who can and cannot argue before them? Our state, unlike many others, does not have reciprocity with most others. (If memory serves, we have reciprocity only with D.C. and one small state.) Californians are, by definition, different. ;-) Once you're admitted to your state court, it's usually just procedural to get admitted to the federal district court(s) in your state. (Smaller states have just one district for the whole state; larger ones, like ours, have many). Paper-pushing. Then, once you're admitted to a federal district court, at least in some circuits it is more paper-pushing, as opposed to an exam or demonstration of competency, to get admitted to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit is a little different, however. Back when I was unsure if I needed to be admitted to the Second to do an amicus, I looked at their requirements, I met all but one, the one which requires that I personally see four (?) arguments in the Second before I could be admitted there. The Ninth does not have a similar requirement, I don't know about other Circuit Courts. Interestingly, the USSC has no similar requirement. They require only that you be in practice for three years and that you be sponsored by someone already admitted to practice in that court. I did the whole thing by mail in about '81, and the rules have not changed since. To me, it is mildly odd that admission to the USSC has less requirements than admission to the Second; and mildly amusing that my admission to the USSC helped me not one bit had I needed to be admitted to the Second. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 30 04:56:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA21927 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:56:51 -0500 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA21924 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:56:48 -0500 Received: from proton ([63.195.90.12]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0G7Y004UJZNWUE@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:57:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:02:01 -0800 From: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dr. Dobbs makes fair use of X-men. In-reply-to: <0G7X005SFANKBE@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: <0G7Y004UMZNWUE@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: A Zillion Monkeys MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20010129110526.F14631@lemuria.org> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > I don't know if this is of any help, but it appears as though the desire to exercise > "fair use" has made it to established media: > > http://www.ddj.com/maillists/compression/0101cm/do200101cm01.avi Here was the author's response: Date sent: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:33:37 -0600 From: Mark Nelson Subject: RE: MPEG-4 To: qed@pobox.com Yes, you are correct that I ripped this from a DVD. As far as copyright issues are concerned, it's pretty likely that using it to illustrate my article is fair use. But the process of decrypting it from the DVD is a little murky, there is some contradictory law at work. In any case, the doctrine of fair use doesn't say anything about the acquisition of copyrighted material; just its reproduction/publication. Right? If you would like to use this as an example of the legitimate use of DVD-ripping software, by all means do so. I would greatly enjoy a highly publicized arrest and show trial as much as the next guy. | | Mark Nelson - markn@ieee.org - http://www.dogma.net/markn | Dr. Dobb's Compression Resource - http://www.ddj.com/topics/compression | The Data Compression Library - http://www.dogma.net/DataCompression | -----Original Message----- From: Paul Hsieh [mailto:qed@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 6:04 AM To: markn@ieee.org Subject: MPEG-4 I read your MPEG-4 article on Dr. Dobbs, and its existence in that form presents an interesting question. What was the starting medium that was used to convert the original X-men content to the final "DiVX ;-)" format? The quality looks quite reasonable, and I suspect you started from the DVD. As you may know the MPAA and DVD-CCA have been embroiled in lawsuits over the legality of circumventing the DVD encryption scheme. But what you've done clearly falls under the category of "fair use". (All this confusion comes from the "DMCA" (Digital Millenium Copyright Act).) I am a sympathizer for the rights of consumers, and lean heavily on the "fair use" side of the suit. So as you can see, as an example of fair use, what you have done may be very valuable to the defence, if in fact you started from DVD media in order to obtain your final result (even if you did not use "deCSS" -- since circumvention is the real point here, not the specific circumvention device.) As you may have noticed the appeal in the major case (MPAA vs 2600) is getting under way, so if you could respond either to me, or directly to the folks at 2600.com with this info, as soon as possible it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Paul Hsieh qed@pobox.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 30 11:53:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA23718 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:53:04 -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 LAA23715 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:52:57 -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; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:56:11 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or Conduct? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:56:07 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/30/2001 08:56:10 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 Sounds positively byzantine and unnecessarily so. Being Sovereigns, it's not surprising that the states do it all their own way (and California does it its own way is really a given) but it's really odd that there should be so much differences in the Federal system. Afterall, the whole point of the Federal system is to have some things be uniform across the country....This is another example of why I think it is time to begin a little real reform of the system rather than the injection of ideology into the system that politicians call "reform." I don't see it as much as you do but from my viewpoint from two trials spent in the jury box(and two other trials where I was preemptory challenge #1 - applied mathematician on a medical malpractice suit and another where I was dismissed for cause-Psychologists are expert witnesses and are allowed to state opinions and their statements should be viewed skeptically and analyzed critically. The judge disagreed.) I think We have a good system but it's getting bogged down in details and paperwork and the occassional high profile blunders [Rodney King, Menendez case {BTW same judge in both cases}, Simpson case] In the one case, after the trial the judge met with the jury in his chambers and we pointed out that the booking sheet used in evidence had the defendant listed as a felon-all the attorneys missed that. WE know WE weren't supposed to know that and part of our deliberations we decided that it had no bearing on our votes or the reasons. But, I suspect it probably would be enough for a retrial on appeal since I doubt the appelate court would interview jurors) "James S. Tyre" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Software: Speech or arvard.edu Conduct? 01/29/01 06:44 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss At 02:47 PM 1/29/2001 -0800, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: >It's rather interesting that lawyers file amicus curiae briefs as "friends >of the court" yet they are already "officers of the court". True, but normally, they're filing them on behalf of clients. I wrote one of the amicus briefs, but the amici are the 17 people on behalf of whom I wrote it. (Once, in the California Supreme Court, I both wrote an amicus solely on my own behalf and argued the case orally, but that is unusual.) >For my own information, the bar exam and licensing is by each state with >reciprocity between many of the states. How do the Federal courts determine >who can and cannot argue before them? Our state, unlike many others, does not have reciprocity with most others. (If memory serves, we have reciprocity only with D.C. and one small state.) Californians are, by definition, different. ;-) Once you're admitted to your state court, it's usually just procedural to get admitted to the federal district court(s) in your state. (Smaller states have just one district for the whole state; larger ones, like ours, have many). Paper-pushing. Then, once you're admitted to a federal district court, at least in some circuits it is more paper-pushing, as opposed to an exam or demonstration of competency, to get admitted to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit is a little different, however. Back when I was unsure if I needed to be admitted to the Second to do an amicus, I looked at their requirements, I met all but one, the one which requires that I personally see four (?) arguments in the Second before I could be admitted there. The Ninth does not have a similar requirement, I don't know about other Circuit Courts. Interestingly, the USSC has no similar requirement. They require only that you be in practice for three years and that you be sponsored by someone already admitted to practice in that court. I did the whole thing by mail in about '81, and the rules have not changed since. To me, it is mildly odd that admission to the USSC has less requirements than admission to the Second; and mildly amusing that my admission to the USSC helped me not one bit had I needed to be admitted to the Second. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 30 12:22:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA24272 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:22:02 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA24269 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:22:00 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA30065; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:25:54 GMT Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:25:54 GMT Subject: [dvd-discuss] KFC "secret recipe" found in trunk in attic? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sorry about this being totally off topic and all that, but according to the British newspaper "The Independent" today (bottom of front page) some people who came across what might be "The Colonel's Secret Recipe" in a trunk in an attic clearout! Needless to say, KFC are allegedly trying to gag them. Apparently this is already the subject of a court case, but I didn't get time to remember enough of the story as I glanced at it on a news-stand at lunchtime! ( Sorry - I can't seem to find a URL for any online version. ) This is of course completely O.T. but we might learn things if we can follow that case. It seems that the "Secret Recipe" is not patented, but like CSS it is(or was!) guarded as a trade secret. Presumably this means that KFC can hold a monopoly on it as long as they can hold onto the secret - it never gets automatically revealed as would a copyright or patent. Obviously the difference between CSS vs. DeCSS is that in this case the 'secret' is revealed not be reverse-engineering, but in some notebook once belonging to "The Colonel". Oh, and there's no guarantee that the recipe in question *is* the secret one, but KFC are allegedly trying to silence it anyway.... -- 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 Tue Jan 30 12:58:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA24757 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:58:49 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA24754 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:58:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29844 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:02:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:02:09 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] KFC "secret recipe" found in trunk in attic? 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 the other hand you have situations like perfume. Clearly there's a secret recipe for making the stuff (and some strange things go into perfume...) but nowadays as I understand it it's quite easy to make knock offs. All you need are some chemists armed with a gas chromatograph. But that market (like casual clothing, which is also quite commoditized) has managed to survive by pushing brands. And because the brands are trademarked, this offers a lot more protection than trade secrets. It's annoying to make legal copies of, for example, Tommy Hilfiger clothes b/c they're covered in logos. Sans trademark protection, you'd see them in every strip mall throughout the land. KFC doesn't need to worry much about their recipe; most people who would have bought chicken from them do so because they don't want to cook their own chicken. (the big secret is the use of pressure cookers, iirc) Competing chains generally want their chicken to be distinctive (this is why Coke and Pepsi have different tastes, not because of the complexity of the recipes) so that they can build brand loyalty themselves. Frankly, the only case I've heard of in which a major company changed something to be _more_ similar to a competitor's, other than New Coke which may have had other motivations, is Burger King trying to get their fries to taste like McDonald'ses. And that was never a big secret either. (I'd speculate that it's because they're confident in their hamburgers being better, so why not commoditize fries, which are a McDonald's strength?) Anyway though, not only is the KFC case uncalled for, I agree that there's room for reform for trade secrets, which as a commerce power shouldn't be infringing on free speech anyway. If an employee violates a legal NDA, I can see taking action against him. If the press picks up on it, well, I just don't see why they too should be gagged. Better to have an economy wherein risks are run concering sensitive information than one that's strong because of a lack of freedom of speech. Incidentally, an analysis of KFC's ordering would probably turn up enough information to reveal the ingredients anyway. 'Sensitive but Unclassified' intelligence channels are plenty useful for motivated analysts. Urg... now I'm hungry... Let us get back to talking about DVDs or briefs or something that won't make me wish it were lunchtime. On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Steve Hosgood wrote: > Sorry about this being totally off topic and all that, but according to the > British newspaper "The Independent" today (bottom of front page) some people > who came across what might be "The Colonel's Secret Recipe" in a trunk in > an attic clearout! > > Needless to say, KFC are allegedly trying to gag them. Apparently this is > already the subject of a court case, but I didn't get time to remember enough > of the story as I glanced at it on a news-stand at lunchtime! > > ( Sorry - I can't seem to find a URL for any online version. ) > > This is of course completely O.T. but we might learn things if we can follow > that case. It seems that the "Secret Recipe" is not patented, but like CSS it > is(or was!) guarded as a trade secret. Presumably this means that KFC can hold > a monopoly on it as long as they can hold onto the secret - it never gets > automatically revealed as would a copyright or patent. > > Obviously the difference between CSS vs. DeCSS is that in this case the 'secret' > is revealed not be reverse-engineering, but in some notebook once belonging to > "The Colonel". > > Oh, and there's no guarantee that the recipe in question *is* the secret one, > but KFC are allegedly trying to silence it anyway.... > > -- > > 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 Tue Jan 30 14:31:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA25585 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:31:57 -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 OAA25582 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:31:55 -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; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:35:40 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] KFC "secret recipe" found in trunk in attic? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:35:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/30/2001 11:35:40 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 This sounds like a case where the court should say "OK KFC, you allege that this is your trade secret. First off, is it or isn't it? If not, you are using the court as a weapon. That's contempt and you are fined. If it is, then what evidence to you have that the finders found it in any way other than how they did? If you have not. Tough. I'm not going to allow you to waste the courts time or the financial resources." "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] KFC "secret recipe" found arvard.edu in trunk in attic? 01/30/01 11:18 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Sorry about this being totally off topic and all that, but according to the British newspaper "The Independent" today (bottom of front page) some people who came across what might be "The Colonel's Secret Recipe" in a trunk in an attic clearout! Needless to say, KFC are allegedly trying to gag them. Apparently this is already the subject of a court case, but I didn't get time to remember enough of the story as I glanced at it on a news-stand at lunchtime! ( Sorry - I can't seem to find a URL for any online version. ) This is of course completely O.T. but we might learn things if we can follow that case. It seems that the "Secret Recipe" is not patented, but like CSS it is(or was!) guarded as a trade secret. Presumably this means that KFC can hold a monopoly on it as long as they can hold onto the secret - it never gets automatically revealed as would a copyright or patent. Obviously the difference between CSS vs. DeCSS is that in this case the 'secret' is revealed not be reverse-engineering, but in some notebook once belonging to "The Colonel". Oh, and there's no guarantee that the recipe in question *is* the secret one, but KFC are allegedly trying to silence it anyway.... -- 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 Tue Jan 30 15:22:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA26311 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:22:48 -0500 Received: from web512.mail.yahoo.com (web512.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA26308 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:22:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20010130202639.26770.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.38] by web512.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:26:39 PST Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:26:39 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] KFC "secret recipe" found in trunk in attic? 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 > Needless to say, KFC are allegedly trying to gag them. Apparently this is > already the subject of a court case, but I didn't get time to remember enough > of the story as I glanced at it on a news-stand at lunchtime! If the facts are as simple as they sound like they are, I see absolutely no grounds to stop the discoverers from publishing this in an article titled "This is the KFC trade secret". > This is of course completely O.T. but we might learn things if we can follow > that case. It seems that the "Secret Recipe" is not patented, but like CSS it > is(or was!) guarded as a trade secret. Presumably this means that KFC can > hold a monopoly on it as long as they can hold onto the secret - it never gets > automatically revealed as would a copyright or patent. Trade secrets DO NOT grant a monopoly. They punish certain types of disclosure when there is a "duty" to maintain the secrecy. Usually that duty is created by signing a nondisclosure agreement. You also have a duty not to break the law, as in corporate espionage or breaking and entering. You also have a duty not to take information when you know it was obtained in violation of such a duty. In this case, unless the finders had some knowledge that the person who put the info on the paper found in the attic did so by misappropriating it, then KFC is completely SOL. KFC isn't as good as Popeye's anyway, so nobody want to hear their whining :-] __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 30 15:45:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA27061 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:45:40 -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 PAA27058 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:45:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (khockenb@localhost) by attila.stevens-tech.edu (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3/7) with ESMTP id PAA28643 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:49:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:49:31 -0500 From: Kurt Hockenbury To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] (Somewhat OT) Region Encoding versus NAFTA? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010124101111.00bb37d0@mail.earthlink.net> 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 Joshua Stratton wrote: > Urg... now I'm hungry... Let us get back to talking about DVDs or briefs > or something that won't make me wish it were lunchtime. Ok, how about this: how can the MPAA get away with Mexico being in region 4? The handy "DVD Region Coding" sheet that came with some DVD I purchased clearly shows that Mexico is Region 4, while the USA & Canada are Region 1... Isn't this restraint of trade? -Kurt From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 30 15:51:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA27185 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:51:49 -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 PAA27182 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:51:46 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (pd950061b.dip.t-dialin.net [217.80.6.27]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACD927AE2 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:51:06 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 40A67175195; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:53:08 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:53:08 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] (Somewhat OT) Region Encoding versus NAFTA? Message-ID: <20010130215307.A17165@lemuria.org> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010124101111.00bb37d0@mail.earthlink.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 khockenb@stevens-tech.edu on Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:49:31PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:49:31PM -0500, Kurt Hockenbury wrote: > Ok, how about this: how can the MPAA get away with Mexico being in region 4? they have more money than you. > Isn't this restraint of trade? MPAA spin: all mexicans are pirates. we have to protect our stuff. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 30 16:13:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA27369 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:13:36 -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 QAA27366 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:13:33 -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; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:17:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] (Somewhat OT) Region Encoding versus NAFTA? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:17:13 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/30/2001 01:17:16 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 Now why should Hollywood abide by NAFTA?....I doubt that Mexico will bring suit as a violation of it? Kurt Hockenbury To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] (Somewhat OT) Region arvard.edu Encoding versus NAFTA? 01/30/01 12:51 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Joshua Stratton wrote: > Urg... now I'm hungry... Let us get back to talking about DVDs or briefs > or something that won't make me wish it were lunchtime. Ok, how about this: how can the MPAA get away with Mexico being in region 4? The handy "DVD Region Coding" sheet that came with some DVD I purchased clearly shows that Mexico is Region 4, while the USA & Canada are Region 1... Isn't this restraint of trade? -Kurt From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 30 16:24:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA27528 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:24:43 -0500 Received: from gryphon.auspice.net (gryphon.ccs.brandeis.edu [129.64.55.103]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA27525 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:24:33 -0500 Received: from localhost (cpt@localhost) by gryphon.auspice.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA30970 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:27:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:27:56 -0500 (EST) From: Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] (Somewhat OT) Region Encoding versus NAFTA? In-Reply-To: <20010130215307.A17165@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 Well there are reportedly a lot of Mexicans living illegally in southern California. I could live with having, say, Los Angeles excluded from region 1 because of all the pirates there ;) On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:49:31PM -0500, Kurt Hockenbury wrote: > > Ok, how about this: how can the MPAA get away with Mexico being in region 4? > > they have more money than you. > > > > Isn't this restraint of trade? > > MPAA spin: all mexicans are pirates. we have to protect our stuff. > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Jan 30 16:25:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA27536 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:25:40 -0500 Received: from pie.cty-alum.org (adsl-63-192-8-227.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.192.8.227]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA27533 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:25:38 -0500 Received: (from schoen@localhost) by pie.cty-alum.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id GAA28313 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:09:37 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:09:36 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] (Somewhat OT) Region Encoding versus NAFTA? Message-ID: <20010130060936.C7449@cty-alum.org> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010124101111.00bb37d0@mail.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from khockenb@stevens-tech.edu on Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:49:31PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Kurt Hockenbury writes: > Joshua Stratton wrote: > > Urg... now I'm hungry... Let us get back to talking about DVDs or briefs > > or something that won't make me wish it were lunchtime. > > Ok, how about this: how can the MPAA get away with Mexico being in region 4? > > The handy "DVD Region Coding" sheet that came with some DVD I purchased > clearly shows that Mexico is Region 4, while the USA & Canada are Region 1... > > Isn't this restraint of trade? It's tricky because the free trade treaties like NAFTA are written to prevent (approximately) governments from restraining trade. They're not written to prevent the DVD Forum from restraining trade! There are antitrust laws which are written to prevent private companies or associations from restraining trade. If you want to find out how they apply to region coding, maybe you should ask Lewis Kaplan. :-) I don't think most antitrust laws are going to be very strict about cases where companies discriminate against foreign consumers (as opposed to against domestic competitors, or against a class of domestic consumers). Now, if a government had set up the region code system, then maybe somebody could bring an action with the WTO, or under NAFTA. So there's a _remote_ theory already briefly discussed where somebody could sue the U.S. government, arguing that the DMCA violates international trade treaties because it props up a region coding system which discriminates against certain countries. Unfortunately, not only is that idea very remote and unlikely, but the international trade treaties are full of bizarre loopholes. -- 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 Tue Jan 30 16:59:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA27994 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:59:45 -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 QAA27991 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:59:42 -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; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:03:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] (Somewhat OT) Region Encoding versus NAFTA? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:03:21 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 01/30/2001 02:03:23 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 I live and work in Los Angeles COUNTY. I wouldn't mind if Hollywierd were designated at Region 0 and excluded from everything. Joshua Stratton To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] (Somewhat OT) Region arvard.edu Encoding versus NAFTA? 01/30/01 01:32 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Well there are reportedly a lot of Mexicans living illegally in southern California. I could live with having, say, Los Angeles excluded from region 1 because of all the pirates there ;) On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:49:31PM -0500, Kurt Hockenbury wrote: > > Ok, how about this: how can the MPAA get away with Mexico being in region 4? > > they have more money than you. > > > > Isn't this restraint of trade? > > MPAA spin: all mexicans are pirates. we have to protect our stuff. > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 31 02:27:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA30066 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:27:06 -0500 Received: from eldritchpress.org (eldred.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.241.25]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA30063 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:26:54 -0500 Received: (from eldred@localhost) by eldritchpress.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA09540 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:35:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:35:43 -0500 From: Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amici briefs Message-ID: <20010131023543.B9522@eldritchpress.org> References: <3A75BB01.6D297626@videotron.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3A75BB01.6D297626@videotron.ca>; from synthesis@videotron.ca on Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 01:48:33PM -0500 Organization: http://www.EldritchPress.org Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 01:48:33PM -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote: > ...anyone know why Jonathan Zittrain's name is just listed as 'professor' with no affiliation? looks > kinda silly, sticking out like he's homeless or something. well when i worked for apollo computer they let me put on my business card just "engineer" ... but it looks to me like somebody tried to have the lines match up on the left and right columns and the two at the end of the alphabetical listing got cropped. the original idea of centering the text in the argument makes it look like an old political broadside, very clever. that's what happens when computers are put in the hands not of our priesthood but those who go out and buy a mac to do 'word processing'.... alas... in any case, the content is what matters and it is wonderful--jonathan is wonderful enough, too, without having to crow about his recent elevation to harvard professorship. i particularly appreciate the section about treaty powers not being able to override the constitution--the same issue arises in eldred v. reno in relation to copyright term. the only thing i have to say is, where were these guys when some of us were fighting against the dmca's passage in 1998. i'd put an emoticon here but it's probably trademarked ;-( From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Jan 31 05:18:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA30731 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:18:29 -0500 Received: from steve.i2it.co.uk (steve.i2it.co.uk [212.250.92.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA30728 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:18:25 -0500 Received: (from steve@localhost) by steve.i2it.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA31089; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:22:17 GMT Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:22:17 GMT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] KFC "secret recipe" found in trunk in attic? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Steve Hosgood" Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta8 In-Reply-To: <20010130202639.26770.qmail@web512.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor writes: > > Needless to say, KFC are allegedly trying to gag them. > > If the facts are as simple as they sound like they are, I see absolutely no > grounds to stop the discoverers from publishing this in an article titled "This > is the KFC trade secret". > Yet 2600 magazine is prevented from publishing deCSS :-( > > Presumably this means that KFC can > > hold a monopoly on it as long as they can hold onto the secret - it never > > gets automatically revealed as would a copyright or patent. > > Trade secrets DO NOT grant a monopoly. > In practice they do while you can keep them secret, or until someone reverse- engineers them, but yes I agree that in *law* they don't. > They punish certain types of disclosure [but] in this case, unless the > finders had some knowledge that the person who put the info on the paper > found in the attic did so by misappropriating it, then KFC is > completely SOL. > This was exactly why I posted in the first place. Surely the situation with deCSS is exactly like this... the studios (amongst other things) have tried to claim that CSS is a trade secret, and that deCSS somehow "misappropriates" that trade secret. That is despite the evidence that it was in fact reverse- engineered by a 15-year old in Norway who was never a signatory to any non- discosure agreement *with* DVD-CCA, and had not been given access to the so-called trade secret *by* DVD-CCA. -- 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" )