Chilling Effects Cease & Desist Clearinghouse

Wendy Seltzer writes: "The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, EFF, and other major law school clinics have launched ChillingEffects.org to combat the chilling effect of Cease & Desist letters with ungrounded legal threats. (Slashdot readers got a site preview in the story on the Bnetd Cease & Desist, already in our database.) If you have received a Cease & Desist, we invite you to add it to the database, where law students will analyze the legalese and annotate the C&Ds with Frequently Asked Questions and answers. The site already offers several sets of general legal FAQs."

Very quick reply

[tulare]

because I am working :)
At first glance, this looks like a great thing. In fact, what the internet was supposed to be. My only question is - how long will they remain available and maintained? Operations like this tend to get their funding mysteriously cut. Sounds like a job for the EFF to fund?

excellent

[prizzznecious]

This is exactly what the internet is for: obscure information easily available to the masses. Be sure to tell your friends etc., as the only way the internet can remain a free place is through active individual self-education. A disturbingly low number of people actually read things like the DMCA or cease and desist letters; we need to be smarter and more aggressive if we want to stay free.

It's Nice To See

[lblack]

It's nice to see that after all the talk and jokes about open-sourcing the law, that it is happening.

Is this that much different from submitting a patch to a peer-maintenance group and having it reviewed by various persons of various qualifications? Or from submitting an Ask Slashdot, for that matter.

I've been involved with businesses that have been threatened by letters about various things. Upon receiving the first of those letters, I started expanding my knowledge of legalese, law application, etc. A lot of google and a few dead trees later, and I'm much more informed... and can now spot the bullshit much easier than I once could.

This database should provide a short circuit, so that people can quickly learn about things that pertain to them, and get assistance on resolving them.

I think this sort of idea is important to free speech in an increasingly corporate medium. It's heartening to see that people care enough to actually devote their time to it.

-l

put where your mouth is your money

[geckoFeet]

Join the eff [eff.org] already. No more excuses.

/. readers have had another prequel to this with the attack of Barney [slashdot.org], the purple Tyrannosaurus rex.

ah!

[icejai]

I stumbled across this on the site:

Question: Are there exceptions that allow the circumvention of technological protection systems?

Answer: There are seven exemptions built into section 1201 of the DMCA, some of which permit the circumvention of access and copy controls for limited purposes, some of which allow for the limited distribution of circumvention tools in particular circumstances. These seven exemptions are for:

• Libraries, archives, and educational institutions for acquisition purposes; [1201(d)]
  
• Law enforcement and intelligence gathering activities; [1201(e)]
  
• Reverse engineering in order to develop interoperable programs;
  

This is something i feel would be a strong argument for all things decss. I was a bit weary of defending 'fair use' of a dvd by descrambling it ... but this exception in the DMCA just seals the deal. If they had only developed a dvd player for *nix, then the *nix guys would have no chance in hell for defending the development and use of stuff like decss. But since they didn't, they left this gaping hole available for the *nix guys and decss supporters to come crashing through.

They ignored a chunk of their customers, and now those customers are going to use this claus to bite them in the ass for their ignorance.

Oh well.... more power to the people!

Re:I agree completely

[smack.addict]

This is not civil disobedience, it is common thievery.

Civil disobedience would be to copy your DVD's and store them in a safe space as backups.

Civil disobedience would be to use Microsoft Office on your laptop and desktop.

In other words, civil disobedience is doing things that might be illegal but still carry the full force of morality. Your acts are both illegal and immoral.

Re:Good idea

[smack.addict]

That's actually quite false, though it is a common European misconception. Our problem is that we are a country that too quickly moves our problems into the courtroom. A C&D letter does not actually imply that the person sending it has any legal case; it simply means they took the time to try to intimidate you into believing they do.

Re:I agree completely

[damiangerous]

I hand out free copies of DVD movies everywhere I can to as many people as I can, along with a 2600 flier about how bad the DMCA is.

Do you do it publicly and openly? Or do you hide behind nicknames when you do it? If you're doing it while attempting to remain free of repercussions, that's not civil disobedience, it's simply petty theft. Civil disobedience is standing up and saying, "I believe this is wrong, and I'm not going to obey it. You'll have to keep arresting me until the law is changed." What you claim to do is a disgrace to all those who practice true civil disobedience.

But that's okay, I realize now that you're a troll. Trolling to one story a day is one thing, but right after replying to you in the multi-player game thread I see this post, and it made me check your posting history. Something I recommend everyone do before any significant replies.

Copyright infringement is NOT theft

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Copyright infringement is NOT theft.

Yes it is a crime or at least a civil violation (tort). It may or may not be immoral - but it is NOT THEFT. Calling it theft does not make it so.

Theft involves obtaining something, and taking it away from someone else - not illegally using, making or distributing a copy.

Re:I agree completely

[SmittyTheBold]

I have obtained a DVD copier (at great expense) and I frequently rent movies and copy them so I can view them later, like so:

O.K., cool!

No, not cool. When you rent a movie, you are borrowing it. (albeit for a fee.) part of the mechanism that renting works on is only one copy is out there at a time. Only one (set of) viewer(s) can watch it at once. When you copy a rented film and keep it for yourself, it is the same as any other sort of piracy. Fair use is fair use of the owner. The owner can loan a copy out, but can't duplicate for others.

This is the exact same as the example "I hand out free copies of DVD movies everywhere I can to as many people as I can," except the loanee is doing the copy, not the loaner.

Re:Copyright infringement is NOT theft

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

But it looks pretty clear to me that these legal experts suggest that copyright infringement steals at least the right of reproduction, if not the right to distribution as well.

I don't buy it. Then we could call murder "theft" as well, on the grounds that you've just "stolen" my right to life. Or why not call "driving while under the influence" "stealing", after all you've "stolen" my right to travel public roads in relative safety. No, IMHO that doesn't work.

And no, I don't buy into the usage in many cases of "theft of service" either. I think most speakers of English takes "theft" to mean that you deprive someone of something, as in they cannot use said thing any more. And that's not the case here. You can still copy all you want, or broadcast your cable TV or whatever. Nothing's been "stolen" in this case.

It's still a crime, but it's another crime.