IP: Life, liberty, and the right to stick our noses wherever we want [outrageous!! djf]

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> Reply-To: <kgb () kgb com>
> From: "Kevin G. Barkes" <kgb () kgb com>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
>  >From Wired:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35498,00.html?tw=wn20000407
>
> Getting Snooped On? Too Bad
> by Declan McCullagh
>
> 3:00 a.m. Apr. 7, 2000 PDT
>
> TORONTO -- You say you don't like browser cookies? You're not quite sure if
> that program you download from the Net is revealing more about you than it
> should?
>
> Well, here's something to make you really nervous: In the United States, it
> may be illegal to disable software that snoops on you.
>
> The folks who came up with this idea turn out to be the large corporations
> that helped to draft the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which
> restricts some forms of tampering with copyright protection devices.
>
> In some cases, that means you won't be able to turn off any surveillance
> features it might include, according to participants in a Thursday afternoon
> panel at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference.
>
> "Privacy circumvention is possible only under a limited circumstance," said
> Paul Schwartz of the Brooklyn Law School.
>
> As more and more copyrighted material makes its way online, content owners
> are turning to encryption to protect their works from widespread illicit
> redistribution.
>
> Stephen King distributed his recent novel online in encrypted form, and
> music companies are backing Secure Digital Memory Card for audio players.
>
> Privacy advocates fret that if future works are secure and thus protected
> under the DMCA, they could reveal consumers' private
> behavior --RealNetworks' RealJukebox player secretly did just that -- and
> tinkering with the program to turn off the reporting mechanism would be
> illegal.
>
> "The practical impact is it's another area we're going to be fighting
> about," Schwartz said.
>
> The DMCA, which became law in October 1998, does allow some very limited
> forms of privacy circumvention. You're allowed to do it if the software
> leaks "personally identifying information" about you without giving you the
> ability to say no, and if you're not "in violation of any other law."
>
> But here's the rub: Many, if not most, programs include shrink-wrap licenses
> that prohibit reverse-engineering or altering the program.
>
> Some courts have said that shrink-wrap licenses -- software license
> agreements that don't require a signature -- are binding. If you violate
> them, would you be able to take advantage of the DMCA's
> privacy-circumvention loophole?
>
> The answer may well be yes. "The statute is basically totally incoherent,"
> says Pam Samuelson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley
> and an influential copyright scholar.
>
> "We're getting tortured by laws that are inherently incoherent," complained
> Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the ACLU.
>
> Violating the DMCA is a civil offense, and "willfully" violating it for
> private financial gain is a criminal offense punishable by five years in
> jail and a $500,000 fine.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> KGB
>
> -----
> Kevin G. Barkes, President <> KGB Consulting, Inc.
> Email: kgb () kgb com <> Web: www.kgb.com
> 1512 Annette Avenue <> Library, Pennsylvania <> 15129-9735
> Voice: 412-854-2550 <> Fax: 412-854-4707
> DCL Dialogue on line: http://www.kgb.com/dcl.html / ftp.kgb.com
> KGB Report http://www.kgb.com/kgbrep.shtml
> Random Quotations Generator: http://www.kgb.com/cgi-bin/kgbquote.cgi
>
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com
> >  [mailto:owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com]On Behalf Of Dave Farber
> >  Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 3:05 PM
> >  To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
> >  Subject: IP: RE: Author of DeCss Arrested
> >
> >
> >
> >  >Reply-To: <callbritton () edit nydailynews com>
> >  >From: "Chris Allbritton" <callbritton () edit nydailynews com>
> >  >To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >Dave,
> >  >
> >  >this is a horrible trend that seems to be accelerating--namely the
> >  >privatization of ALL knowledge. It seems that copyright laws are
>  > being used
> >  >not as an incentive for artists to produce new work, but revenue
> >  streams for
> >  >multinational corporations. I can't imagine this is what the
> >  framers had in
> >  >mind when they wrote that clause into ye olde Constitution.
> >  >
> >  >I enclose portions of a (copyrighted) story that appeared in Saturday's
> >  >NYTimes on this subject:
> >  >
> >  >The Artist's Friend Turned Enemy: A Backlash Against the Copyright
> >  >By PAUL LEWIS
> >  >
> >  >Shakespeare was great at writing plays but lousy at inventing
> >  plots. So he
> >  >borrowed them.
> >  >
> >  >"Romeo and Juliet," for instance, was lifted from "The Tragicall
> >  Historye of
> >  >Romeus and Juliet," a 1562 translation of a tale by Matteo Bandello, an
> >  >Italian writer, soldier and monk. "Julius Caesar" came out of Sir Thomas
> >  >North's 1579 translation of Plutarch's "Lives of Nobel Grecians
> >  and Romans."
> >  >
> >  >Nobody sued for breach of copyright because there wasn't any. By
> >  and large,
> >  >the work of artists, inventors and scientists was available for others to
> >  >copy, improve or improvise on at will.
> >  >
> >  >Of course, that hasn't been true the last couple of hundred
> >  years. The idea
> >  >of a copyright -- to establish personal ownership of artworks, ideas,
> >  >techniques and other intellectual property -- was included in
> >  Article 1 of
> >  >the United States Constitution. In 1989 Americans took out
> >  95,537 patents;
> >  >in 1998 the number reached 147,521 and 72,395 more were issued to
> >  >foreigners.
> >  >
> >  >In 1998 Congress extended existing copyright protection for an
> >  additional 20
> >  >years. Major beneficiaries were corporations like Disney, whose
> >  copyright on
> >  >Mickey Mouse, for example, was to expire in 2004 but has now
> >  been extended
> >  >through 2023.
> >  >
> >  >Since then criticism has been building in the academic world, with many
> >  >arguing that the growing privatization of knowledge will threaten
> >  >traditional intellectual and artistic freedoms.
> >  >
> >  >"Industries and governments always favor strong intellectual property
> >  >protection; academics tend to favor weaker protection," said Robert P.
> >  >Merges, an expert on intellectual property law at the University of
> >  >California at Berkeley. "If you took a poll of American academics, you'd
> >  >find most believe the knowledge grab has gone too far."
> >  >
> >  >This year a group of Harvard University law professors asked the United
> >  >States District Court for the District of Columbia to declare
> >  the Copyright
> >  >Extension Act of 1998 unconstitutional. They argued that it violated
> >  >guarantees of free speech by reprivatizing works that would
> >  otherwise have
> >  >become public property. They also said it breached a constitutional
> >  >requirement that copyright laws "promote the progress of science
> >  and useful
> >  >arts."
> >  >
> >  >"Extending a dead author's copyright won't encourage him to write another
> >  >book," said Lawrence Lessig, one of the Harvard professors bringing the
> >  >case. "Would Shakespeare have written 'Romeo and Juliet' if he had to get
> >  >permission from Bandello and pay royalties?"
> >  >
> >  ><I wish I could include more, but alas, I would be running up
> >  against fair
> >  >use laws. But I can probably include a little more...>
> >  >
> >  >While some of the fastest growth in copyrights has been in the field of
> >  >computer software (where the number of patents granted is expected to
> >  >increase to 22,500 for 1999 from 1,300 in 1990), companies are
> >  increasingly
> >  >patenting such innovations as methods of doing business.
> >  >
> >  >Amazon.com, the on-line bookseller, for example, has patented its "one
> >  >click" sales system, allowing customers to place new orders with a single
> >  >press on the computer mouse. And priceline.com has done the same for
> >  >"reverse auctions," which enable buyers to name a price and find
> >  a seller.
> >  >Applications for such "business method" patents have risen 70
> >  percent this
> >  >year, according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
> >  >
> >  >Critics say that the current laws on intellectual property may shrink the
> >  >pool of freely available artworks and ideas from which artists
> >  and inventors
> >  >often draw their inspiration.
>  > >
> >  >In "Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the
> >  >Information Society" (Harvard University Press), James Boyle of American
> >  >University argues that the present system overemphasizes the
> >  rights of the
> >  >romanticized author at the expense of "the public domain
> >  necessary to give
> >  >the magpie genius the raw material she needs."
> >  >
> >  ><The "romanticized author" these days is too often a faceless
> >  corporation.
> >  >To grant these immortal bodies with scads of money and power the
> >  same rights
> >  >as (relatively powerless) individuals is a travesty, one that extends far
> >  >beyond the issue of intellectual property. But another well-made
> >  point from
> >  >the article:>
> >  >
> >  >Ronald V. Bettif, a communications professor at Pennsylvania State
> >  >University, writes in his book "Copyrighting Culture: the
> >  Political Economy
> >  >of Intellectual Property" (Westview Press): "The consequences of expanded
> >  >intellectual property rights are always the same: the continuing
> >  enclosure
> >  >of the intellectual and artistic commons.
> >  >
> >  >"More and more knowledge and culture are being privately appropriated and
> >  >submitted to the logic of the marketplace."
> >  >
> >  ><I only wish I could include a link to the article but it's buried in the
> >  >premium archives now. Hm. That seems to prove my point even more. Anyway,
> >  >the continuing corporatization of so many aspects of our lives
> >  threatens to
> >  >erase the cultural and intellectual commons that allow people
> >  with vision to
> >  >move society forward. Instead we seem content to place that vision in the
> >  >hands of the 'free market,' which doesn't hold the common good
> >  as a value,
> >  >but instead seeks--by law--to maximize shareholder value. In
> >  cases regarding
> >  >intellectual property, shareholder value is antithical to a free and open
> >  >society.>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >Cheers,
> >  >--
> >  >Chris Allbritton
> >  >Technology Reporter -- New York Daily News
> >  >450 W. 33rd St., New York, NY 10001-2681
> >  >callbritton () edit nydailynews com
> >  >(212) 210-2197 (v)
> >  >(212) 210-2921 (f)
> >  >
> >  > > -----Original Message-----
> >  > > From: owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com
> >  > > [mailto:owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com]On Behalf Of Dave Farber
> >  > > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 10:56 AM
> >  > > To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
> >  > > Subject: IP: Author of DeCss Arrested
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > [ In my view this type of action portends serious serious
> >  problems in the
> >  > > future. I wonder if, as a teacher, I had assigned a project to
> >  > > explore the
> >  > > security of some system and see how robust it was, if I and
> >  my studnets
> >  > > would be arrested?   djf]
> >  > >
> >  > > >Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:48:57 -0500 (EST)
> >  > > >From: Joe Greenseid <jgreenseid () mail wesleyan edu>
> >  > > >To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
> >  > > >
> >  > > >Jon Johansen, the 16 year old from Norway who cracked DVD
> >  encryption was
> >  > > >arrested in a suprise raidyesterday after being named in a
> >  > > lawsuit by some
> >  > > >of the biggest companies in entertainment.
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Police raid teen hacker's home
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Police have raided the Larvik home of a teen charged by some of
> >  > > the world's
> >  > > biggest entertainment companies with ripping off their music and
> >  > > films. The
> >  > > boy broke the code protecting videos and CDs. \
> >  > >
> >  > > Entertainment industry giants including Sony, Universal, MGM
> >  and Warner
> >  > > have sued the 16-year-old Norwegian, accusing him of hacking his way
> >  > > through the codes meant to protect their products from downloading.
> >  > >
> >  > > They also charged he then publicized the code on the Internet.
> >  > > The teenager
> >  > > published the code on the home page of his father's company. His
> >  > > father is
> >  > > also charged.
> >  > >
> >  > > <snip>
> >  > >
> >  > >http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/d121152.htm
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >