Felten Suit to Continue 198
MadCow-ard writes: "C|Net has an article on the EFF pushing ahead with the countersuit to open the way to Dr. Felten to publishing the SDMI hack. RIAA has back peddled from their original threats, and now claim "hey, we never were going to sue him, so lets just drop the whole thing". It seems they prefer scare tactics to going up against free speech in a court room. Fear has more leverage because 'anything' could happen. The best part is the EFF and Felten are planning a victory dinner at $250 a head!" The recent legal filings are available, if you want to read the maneuvering. In a nutshell: both the RIAA and EFF think the RIAA made a mistake by threatening Felten, and want to negate it or capitalize on it respectively.
vaporous imaginings and chimerical fears (Score:1)
Re:DMCA Violations Lead to Human Rights Violations (Score:1)
DMCA Violations Lead to Human Rights Violations (Score:4)
Here is some disturbing commentary:
This just in from Bill Scannell [cryptonomicon.net]:
I just got off the telephone with Vladimir Katalov.
Katalov informs me that the Russian embassy has been denied access to Dmitry Sklyarov, a flagrant violation of international law. No Russian consular official has spoken to Sklyarov since his detention earlier this week.
In addition, Sklyarov's wife and two children have not heard from their husband and father since his arrest. They are understandably worried sick for his safety.
It is believed Dmitry Sklyarov is being held in solitary confinement.
As an American who honorably served in the armed forces, I am ashamed for the actions of my government. This cannot stand.
Telephone numbers:
US State Department: 1-202-647-6575
Russian Embassy: 1-202-298-5700
Russian Consul (SF) 1-415928-6878
Call. Get your friends to call. Call again.
Please disseminate this information as widely as possible.
-Bill
Great suit (Score:4)
What is really great is if the DMCA, or at least the relevant part of it, gets declared unconstitutional, then it will be impossible to stop anyone from making a crack public. All the person who made the crack has to do is send it to a friendly computer science professor who will then write it up in a paper and publish it on the web, and it will all be totally legal.
Maybe they should change the thrust of their suit. (Score:5)
As I understand the law, making threats of lawsuits that you do not actually intend to follow through on in order to bully someone into doing what you want is a criminal offense. Isn't it?
If i am correct, then why isn't the EFF going after the RIAA for *that*? Seems the results of a suit finding the RIAA guilty of trying to use 'we'll sue you' scare tactics against an individual without the ability to defend himself could be far more damaging in the eye of the public media than forcing the RIAA to allow something they now claim they'll alow anyway, and could maybe end with some punitive damages that could fund the EFF..
Oh, hell, why not go against the RIAA in court for BOTH?
What am i missing/confused on here?
Re:Send the tax refund to the RIAA (Score:5)
The EFF is going further than this... (Score:5)
http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA/20
F. A declaration that the DMCA is unconstitutional on its face because it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
G. A declaration that the application of the DMCA to the publication or presentation of scientific, academic or technical speech, including the publication of computer programs, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
EFF should also sue the United States (Score:2)
The real danger is that the RIAA will step behind the scenes and convince the Attorney General's office to press criminal charges against Felton et al.
Then the RIAA could step back and say, 'Hey, we didn't sue. The Federal government "decided" to sue'
In reality, it just became dangerous to present any research findings on encryption. Now anyone who wants to do so has to balance their desire to advance the science of encryption against the very real possibility of being charged with a felony and facing prison time and/or the loss of their house, car, and all their possessions.
Makes me glad I didn't go into the field! I wonder whether the next generation of cryptologists and cryptographic scientists will feel the same.
Re:Maybe they should change the thrust of their su (Score:3)
Perhpas they're being "honest". Maybe they just planned to do what Adobe did and sick the FBI on him. Technically, they're initial letter just warned him that he might violate the DMCA. I wonder if they cc:ed their warning to the FBI?
Re:Send the tax refund to the EFF? (Score:4)
Well, if you really want to get the economy back on track, you'd buy some over-priced CDs :)
Me, I'm going to save the money just to spite the Prez. and Mr. Greenspan. It's amazing that conspicuous consumption, or even consumption at all, has been elevated to the standard-bearer of our economy. Sure, the economy depends on people buying goods and services, but it seems kind of sordid to tell the American people that it's their God-given duty to go out and spend some for the W, especially since there are plenty of ways that money could be used towards the long-term improvement of society and the economy in general. Too bad the President, along with most politicians, isn't a particularly long-term thinker.
Grrrr, I haven't been this angry since the last time Miguel said something [slashdot.org] :)
(boy, you know you read /. too much when all of your witty self-referential posts have scrolled off of your user page.)
Re:The dinner... (Score:2)
Except maybe bite-sized chunks of the RIAA's @ss.
--
sue bastards? (Score:5)
did anyone else notice the url ended with sue-bastards2.html? not that we're resorting to childish name calling or anything of the sort... but... well, i guess we are.
oh well.
--
Re:Send the tax refund to the EFF? (Score:2)
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
Rock on. I've been saying this for years.
Re:Australia has similar stupid laws too (Score:2)
The problem in the US is that there has been enough time for loopholes to be found. Combined with failing to do anything about people enguaged in high treason, even in the full glare of the media.
Re:RIAA should have funded the project. (Score:2)
But any half decent "locksmith" would tell you that mass market and high security are difficult to combine. Especially when you intend to use the security aspect against the owner of the device.
Re:vaporous imaginings and chimerical fears (Score:3)
The US has a very poor track record of acknowlaging international boundries. Remember that there have also been recent issues involving a Nowegian citizen (in Norway) Canadian citizens (in Canada), British citizens in the UK. All related to the DMCA.
Also the illegal holding of a (minor) Cuban citizen for several months.
Re:Take this motion seriously . . . (Score:2)
You appear to misunderstand the import of a Motion to Dismiss. RIAA is not asking EFF to withdraw its suit, it is asking the Court to kick EFF out of court.
And what I am saying is that they have a case. It is a rare circumstance that you will be permitted to sue me to resolve possible lawsuits I might file against you but have not filed (this is what EFF is suing for -- resolution of an unfiled lawsuit, or a "Declaratory Judgment").
Re:Take this motion seriously . . . (Score:2)
Re:Take this motion seriously . . . (Score:2)
That would be helpful, had the action been filed before the conference was over. RIAA will argue, persuasively to a court, I think, that apparently, nobody thought the threat important enough to sue about it at the time.
It's very obvious to all, that what happens is, that the EFF calls the RIAA's bluff, but the EFFs lawyers used a lot of language to point out why this is necessary.
RIAA's point here is that Professor Felton did not call the bluff. No injunction was in place -- he was free to give his speech or to file an action for an emergency injunction at the time. Instead, he waited -- this is the sort of thing for which there are a zillion cases saying "No DJ jurisdiction."
I'm not saying RIAA is in the right. Just that there is a fair chance the District Court will find this motion persuasive unless EFF manifests substantial evidence that there is likelihood RIAA will subsequently seek to sue Felton for publishing.
Re:Take this motion seriously . . . (Score:2)
As a lawyer who has practiced in this arena quite a bit, I'll leave it at this: the truth is much more interesting.
Yes, a threat of a lawsuit may give rise to a cause of action for DJ jurisdiction. But (1) there isn't always jurisdiction unless certain facts can be proved; and (2) even when you can prove them, the District Court needn't take the case.
All I am saying is this: the the motion seriously. RIAA has a fair chance of kicking this case out of court for lack of jurisdiction without further adjudication.
Re:Take this motion seriously . . . (Score:2)
My point was, in response the the original post I replied to, that persons do have recourse against bogus claims.
You can always file papers. Paper doesn't refuse ink.
In this case, by the way, EFF filed papers. RIAA filed a motion to dismiss -- which is to say that RIAA is asserting that it is EFF's claim that is bogus. Take this motion seriously.
Take this motion seriously . . . (Score:5)
Why? You can't sue because you are merely apprehensive of being sued under a statute. Unless you are affirmatively fearful that the other side intends to sue, and they are refraining from suit as a tactic to get the benefit of the threat without risking adjudication, a Court is free to refrain from taking up the cause.
No doubt, EFF will do a job in this case, hitting RIAA over the head with their rather amazing history of conduct, and perhaps raising the criminal risk card from Las Vegas. But so far, these facts still look 50-50 in terms of going forward in an action for a declaratory judgment.
Now, I'd expect EFF to offer RIAA to dismiss if they sign a general release and consent to publish the article -- thus, RIAA would have to concede, or look bad before the Court.
But these guys are all represented by awesome lawyers. It will be very interesting to watch what they do.
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
Well that sounds fine and dandy until you actually sit down and do the math. The fact of the matter is that significant percentage of the population of the united states relies very heavily on government handouts. No I am not talking about the welfare mothers I am talking about farmers, ranchers, veterant, elderly people, sick people, and damn near every resident of rural states who get back from the govt more then they pay into the govt. The ugly fact is that the "liberal" (and more densly populated) states like New York and California subsidize the rural (and conservative) states like Arizona and Montana.
If indeed the govt took back that money or better yet never collected it at all so that New York money stayed in New York then the west and the midwest would collapse and fall into serious disrepair. Of course being angry and armed lot who knows what the consequences of that would be. Look how the farmers in oregon are blaming the govt for the 10 year draught for example and are taking the law into their own hands.
Usually whenever I hear somebody say "give me back the money" what they really mean is "Don't take away my benefits and handouts go take away theirs instead". Are you willing to give up low interest school loans? pell grants? govt paved roads? public parks? tennis courts and swmming pools? Go ask your neighbors what they are willing to sacrifice to pay less taxes and every single one will say "why should I have to sacrifice just take the money away from those guys (welfare mothers, corporations, foreigh nations etc).
Yea I agree let's get the govt out of the business of welfare can we start with you?
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
"You are mixing issues. I am talking FEDERAL government. Not local and state."
You seemed to have missed my point. The FEDERAL govt redistributes wealth from the people who live in cities and well off suburbs to the rural states where the farmers and the ranchers live. If the taxes collected from the state of new york actually stayed in new york people of montana would starve to death. They could not maintain their state roads, their sewage systems, their police and fire resources. The farmers would all go belly up without subsidized loans and the ranchers would lose all their cattle without subsized grazing fees and price supports etc. In other words states like montana would suffer a catastrophic financial collapse.
As for your dust bowl analogy well it just does not fly. It's a different world today then it was in the early part of the century. Today people are not only armed but are willing to go half cocked when anything bugs them. Not only that but they are being whipped into a anti govt frenzy by the right wing media. You can be sure the minute the shit started hitting the fan the bullets would fly. It has already happened in Montana and Arizona and it's looking like it's going happen again in Oregon. People will take the law into their own hands make no mistake about it.
A final real world example.
A year or so ago there was a huge anti govt rally in Libby Montana. The newspapers were full of talk about revolution and kicking govt ass. Then people found out that the local mining company (W.R Grace) had poisoned the entire town with asbestos dust for years and that was the reason they had cancer at alarming rates. Now those same anti govt kooks are yelling at the govt for not providing enough money and not preventing the mining company from killing them. I wish I was the head of the EPA. I would walk into that town tell them that they don't deserve govt money and they should all die slow and painful deaths at the hands of the mining company that they worshiped for decades. Too bad the actual govt is much kinder then I am and will actually help out those who hate it and want to kill it.
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
Whoo hoo that puts you right up there with the homosexuals. In fact I would guess that more then five percent of the american population is homosexual. Somehow you are not suggesting that US should reorganize itself to better suit the homosexual community though are you? Why should we reshape the entire fucking country to suit the whims of the five percent?
"Likewise, the things you mention are LOCAL GOVERNMENT functions except for national parks,"
Are you reading my posts? Let me say it again.
One if you think that local services like parks and such are paid ENTIRELY by your local taxes then you are profoundly mistaken. The cost of almost all local infrastucture from roads to schools is largely borne by the federal govt. Apparently you also can't seem to get your mind around the fact that if the federal funds dry up then the state has to pick up slack for retirement benefits, farm subsidies, etc. Imagine a state like iowa which already received more from the federal govt then it gives (welfare state in other words) suddenly having to cope with not only the municipal park but also the collapsing dairy, corn and beef industries. It can't be done. Iowa and other welfare states would turn into third world countries in a hurry.
"Waco? Ruby Ridge? Tim McVeigh?"
Oh boy you are one of those people. Tim Mcveigh is a murderer. He murdered hundreds of people including small children. I can't believe he is a hero to you people. As for Waco and Ruby Ridge here is a clue for you freakazoids. The correct response to "Come out with your hands up" is not "Screw you we have guns and we are not afraid to use them". What the hell were they expecting? Why not just walk out with your hand up and deal with it in court like every other freaking American Citizen does. If you want to die resisting arrest and shoot at federal agents when they come to arrest you then don't whine about it. Just do us all a favor and die for your cause.
"I mean to say, they only got the handouts that all Americans are promised, correct?"
Absolutely not. The kind taxpayers of California, New York and other hard working states handed over their tax money so a welfare state like Montana could actually clean up the mess W.R grace left behind. You see the evil FEDERAL GOVERNMENT did not want more people in Libby dying (even though they are tax leeching govt haters). So they agreed to actually spend millions of dollars cleaning up the shit the corporation left behind. You'd think those people in libby would be thanking the hard working people of New York and california as well as the kindly FEDERAL govt but no they still curse them daily all the while spending their money. A bunch of good for nothing, ungrateful, shitheads that they are.
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
There is a severe difference betweent he actions of the waco/ruby ridge crowd and your example. History of the world is full of heroic and brave people who were not afraid to be arrested, jailed and even die for what they believed in. These people were not willing to be arrested or jailed or die for their cause. They simply wanted to throw a tantrum and then whine about it endlessly on talk radio. Nelson Madella spent decades behind bars in a brutal south african prisons before emerging as a world leader. Randy weaver would not have made it a day in that jail. He is a coward for hiding behind his wife and kids and leading them slaughter. He should have been a man about it and either fought to the death by himself of went to jail and sacrificed his freedom like Ghandi, or Mandella did. He is a coward of the worst sort.
"Do you believe, in both theory and pratice, that the welfare state is a destructive, addicting, and evil social apparatus?"
Absolutely not. Not only do I think the welfare state is a pragmatic solution to the varied problems our country faces but is in fact the will of the people (in fact it would not have developed if it wasn't wanted by the people). Without it the less populated states would have degenerated into pools of severe poverty and there would be serious disruption of our food, water, energy, wood and mineral supplies. The only way to assure that farmers, ranchers, loggers, etc are able to do their jobs and distribute their good to the vast expanses of the American landscape is with massive federal tax money.
Aside from the practical I also believe that as a country which professes to be Christian there is a moral imperitive from Christ and God to tend to the poor and the less fortunate. If this is a "one country under god" then we better be tending the needs of the wretched. In fact the sermon on the mount is the most "liberal" document ever written and it came out of the mouth of Christ himself.
I don't know where you get this idea that the welfare state is evil. Perhaps you can point to a document where the devil extorts people to help the poor or tend to the sick. It seems like those values come from God not the Devil. If anything Satanism (as practised today) is the closest religion to capitalism I can see. Their main tenant is "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Your ideal of a world where it's every man for himself and the abondenment of the good of the whole is closer to satanism then to Christianity.
If you want to spend your tax refund getting yourself some nice shoes or some golf clubs then fine do it. But don't go around pretending that you are doing some "Moral" or "Just" thing by spending the money buying stuff for yourself. The Moral thing to do would be to sacrifice that money for the greater good. I think giving that money to the EFF would benefit the greater good.
I think Jesus with agree with me and Satan would agree with you.
How would Jesus spend his tax refund? OK that's a trick question. Jesus would be too poor to pay taxes or get a refund.
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
Sez who? You? Sure that's your opinion but so what? Apparently most people don't share your opinion because most people want the federal govt to be involved in many many things. My opinion is that the govt is here to serve the citizens. Yes that means farm subsidies and welfare. I also believe in a strong and activist govt to protect the "we who are not are not like you" from "you". This country has a horrible record when it comes to treatment of the "you don't think or look like us" citizens.
"I'd love to address your other issues,"
It's useless. I'll never change your opinion and you'll nver change mine.
" I certainly never ever call anyone else a satanist."
When you said that welfare was "evil" you brought religion into this discussion. Evil is a religious term. Sorry but you brought it up. I never called you a satanist I merely pointed out the following facts which are pretty much incontrevertable.
1) Jesus was an advocate of the poor and the disenfranchised. Insofar as the welfare state seeks to help the poor and the disenfranchised it is following the teachings of christ.
2)The Devil never ever advocated helping the less fortunate. The devil (and the modern satanist church) advocate the principle of "every man for himself".
3) capitalism is indistinguisable from satanism. It advocates selfishness and greed as the highest virtue available to man. More then that it uses as it's main driving force all seven of the deadly sins. Pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, covetousness and sloth are woven into the very fabric of capitalism and american society.
If you are looking for evil look at right wing Talk radio which seeks to "anger" americans and fill them with "pride" and partiotism all while running commercials to instill "envy" and "covetousness" so that people will consume to "gluttony" all those time saving devices so then can practise their "sloth".
If the Devil ever thought of a political or a social structure it would look exactly like capitalism.
Not one religous figure (with the exception of church of satan founder anton LeVey) ever said "go forth and accumulate as much wealth as possible". Not Jesus, Not Mohammed, not Budha. In fact they all advocated living simply at or near poverty and helping others. That puts them at severe odds with capitalism.
Re:The dinner... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Take this motion seriously . . . (Score:3)
Furthermore, the defendant's claim that they never intended to sue is laregely irrelevant in light of their actions preceeding the withdrawl of Felton's paper. Actions speak louder than words, and while the RIAA may have never said "we'll sue," their pressure to review the publication before it was presented sure sounds like they were under the impression that something gave them the necessary leverage to even request such a thing.
At the very least, the trial judge will have a fact finding, review depositions, etc. to determine which party is more trustworthy. Did the RIAA pressure Felton with threat of lawsuit, or did Felton pull the paper to justify the suit? Judges adjudicate such questions every day. Which do you think the judge will more likely find?
I don't think it will be a problem for the issue to come to trial, but it will take a long time; and it will be a long time after that before a final decision is rendered.
The RIAA Is a Facade (Score:3)
This is slightly offtopic, but I don't know why it hasn't been suggested before. The RIAA is a front to divert attention away from the record companies to save face. And we are falling for it. I suggest that from now on, whenever we would use the term RIAA, we should now use [BMG|Geffen|MTV|MCA|Polygram|Sony|Virgin|WarnerBr
Asylum Records, Refuge Records, Guardian Records
Greatful Dead Records (!!!), Woodstock Records, PBS Records
Buddha Records, Aware Records, Bliss Productions, Gospel Records, Worship Together Records, Praise Gathering
and of course, Straight Profit Records, Victory Records, Ruthless Records, Ruffhouse Records, and Psychopath Records. <-- At least these guys are for real.
LS
Re:Send the tax refund to the EFF? (Score:2)
Re:Send the tax refund to the EFF? (Score:2)
Look at how much money the federal government has poured into education in the last few decades, and then look at the declining average SAT scores or any other metric of student performance. In education, overbearing government bureaucracy is far more of a problem than lack of funds.
Re:Take this motion seriously . . . (Score:2)
- That serious damage was already done, since the paper wasn't presented at the conference it was supposed to
- That the legal threats were only drawn back after the damage was done.
- That other (closely related) publications may suffer a similar fate
- That nothing prevents the RIAA from using the same tactics again
- That the legal threat was used to also prevent publication of material not covered by the DMCA
- That scientific work was already harmed by the RIAA's interpretation of the DMCA, and that it will be harmed in the future
This is reason enough to ask for a judgement here, since that is the only way to prevent threats of similar calibre, and the document states that quite clearly. It also points out, that the DMCA conflicts with the first amendment in some aspects, so asking the court for a ruling seems to be the only way to make it clear, what the scientists may publish and what not, if they don't want to risk a lawsuit.
It's very obvious to all, that what happens is, that the EFF calls the RIAA's bluff, but the EFFs lawyers used a lot of language to point out why this is necessary.
Re:DMCA Violations Lead to Human Rights Violations (Score:2)
Re:DMCA Violations Lead to Human Rights Violations (Score:2)
What with the embarrasing FBI mole fiasco and the more recent lost guns and laptops affair, and now this, seems that the FBI guys really are losing it.
Re:The EFF is going further than this... (Score:2)
Re:haha (Score:2)
offtopic but important (Score:2)
The URL that was
http://diddl.firehead.org/censor/
is now going to be
http://censored.firehead.org:1984/
Please update bookmarks and things. The old URL will continue to work.
-----
Re:sue bastards? (Score:2)
If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it will almost certainly be filed under "duck".
However, if it employs legal intimidation tactics like a bastard, erodes fair use like a bastard, and price gouges like a bastard, then it will likely be filed under "bastard".
If you go through life acting like a bastard, then don't be suprised if someone calls you a bastard.
Hooboy. (Score:5)
"When it comes right down to it we as citizens should have and did get a tax refund because it was morally imperative. The government budgets XYZ for a year - lets say $3T. The government collects $4T. It follows that we should refund that extra $1T to the people who paid it. By the way, it also follows that if we only collected $2T that we should all get an additional "gap" tax bill at the end of the year, to cover the deficit."
Well, commies like me will tell you giving huge chunks of change to incredibly wealthy people even while their overall share of the tax burden is decreasing is unfair. Wrong even. I'm a big believer in the estate tax, for example. It typically affects only extremely rich people or moderately rich people that are astonishingly stupid (or unlucky) when it comes to tax planning. There are other mechanisms for dealing with the 9 or so farmers affected. The beautiful thing about the estate tax is that it, like property tax, is a tax on wealth. Being rich is a cool thing and fun and, take alone, morally neutral. But passing that wealth along as a means of entrenching power? The hell with that. President Tinybrain, err, Bush is the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush III. He in turn was freakin' Queen Elizabeth II's 13th cousin twice removed (check it: http://www.genealogyspot.com/know/president.htm). Whatever happened to that work hard, self-made man stuff? (To be nearly fair: Bush the Elder is not a moron. He worked damn hard and definitely bettered the Bush family fortune and prospects by his ventures into the oil business. This was an independent step for him. At worst he may be an evil CIA spook who should have been fitted with a radio collar for surveillance purposes. But at least he actually went out and did stuff unlike his useless kid.) Maybe Tinybrain would be a better prez if he'd had to work for a living?
Cynical and bitter lovers of freedom and democracy like me will tell you that offering a tiny bribe to people who are more likely to have not voted for you than not is a cheap way to distract them from the coup you accomplished last fall. We will also point out that had you given the money "back" in the form of credits on payroll taxes (the largest category of taxes for most people and tremendously regressive [not that that is always a bad thing; c.f. my estate tax rant above]) you would have helped far more people than this did. It apparently wasn't a question of "your" money as it was "some of your money." Of course then you wouldn't be able to reward the people that helped overthrow our government.
But most of all, pragmatic people like me will tell you that flushing the surplus we have now so we can borrow it back later (plus more to pay the debt service!) is astonishingly short sighted. The heart of my beef with your post is your take on the budgetary process.
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
Being rich can be cool and fun, but not if you don't have a clue what fun really is. There's nothing wrong with being rich, except if people are dying from hunger outside your door. So I'll take this sentence with a grain of salt, but basically it can be true. Eg, the contempt of "rich kids" who never worked for themselves is flawed. They just got born in a rich family, that's not a crime or anything, and they don't have to prove "worthy" to anybody. Those who take offence to such facts of the world, got a problem. I'll be the first to admit to that in cases like these.
What matters in successful politics and government is not how much tax you issue, where the money goes or what ideologies you serve. It's your whole attitude, the attitude of every politician, congressman and president. Since both leading parties are basically corrupted by fake issues, fake promises and lust/greed for wealth and power, politics is wildly unsuccessful. This is happening in most countries today. The people we put up there is just not authentic. If they once cared for the people, they got distracted by all the drama in politics and stress.
A politician spends most of his day and energy bickering with other politicians or mainly doing paperwork. He doesn't spend it discussing positive aspects of society, encouraging effective and human solutions or going deep into the problem by consulting real people that live and work in the subject area. He is not expected to be friendly with politicians with other parties, they are not expected to share ideas or help eachother to reach an agreement. The loyalty goes to the party and you are to grab all that you can, especially when the "enemy" is lying down. Those who are authentic and work towards common solutions are ridiculed or ignored, just like on online forums. There's tremendous resistance to anything new or original, unless it's insignificant. Politicians spends most of their time deciding on insignificant issues! Besides issuing personal attacks.
Many of them may even believe they work for the people. They struggle everyday, to keep some promise or another. To fight against eachother for some obscure cause. Which basically boils down to a few insignificant payouts here and there. Money, what people expect from politicians. It's so ineffective, and once the money is sent noone ever bothers to check on the progress. Sending money to a poor man never helps, because he doesn't know how to live - other than living poorly. You can't replace real education, moral support and general friendliness/helpfulness with a budget. It may be the "American Dream" but it's basically flawed, because it misses out on all human factors other than greed.
The problems in politics is not just the fault of politicians. It's rooted in the apathy and cynicism of the entire nation. Just like a real person, I believe it's got to go downhill before people realize what's happening and their real potential in life.
- Steeltoe
Boring read... (Score:2)
It's a detailled, line-by-line arguement about how the court shouldn't be considering this motion.
The only thing that it says is that the court should throw out this motion because the RIAA never sued and this case has no grounds.
I agree with some of the earlier posters, the RIAA is maintaining that the DMCA is a tool to intimidate, not rule on.
Interestingly, pulling the paper was apparently voluntary, and the RIAA argues that this case is about fishing for good publicity and a ruling on the DMCA.
IANAL, but I think that they may be right... we shall see.
Alex
Re:The RIAA Is a Facade (Score:2)
That said, I'm not condoning the way the RIAA behaves. I'm just trying to explain why those companies are on the list. Perhaps they should take a moral stand, and quit the association, but who wants to be first to stick their neck out against industry giants? Besides, they're probably being force-fed a bunch of BS by the RIAA dons about how they'll go bust if they don't tow the association line.
Re:Death to the DMCA (Score:3)
Re:Death to the DMCA (Score:3)
I have no problems with having faith in the courts. We need to keep this from being a shouting match between the techies, who shout "bad law" and the RIAA and gang, who shout "good law". For this, we need REASONS, not contentions, not moral one-upmanship, or legal maneuvring. Because you are presenting this case before the courts, and we do believe these are reasonable judges, right?
Australia has similar stupid laws too (Score:4)
Re:Profit?! hahaha (Score:3)
First, they raise money (probably about $180 out of the $250.) Attendees know they could get a much better meal for $500 a couple by eating out at a real restaurant.
Secondly, big donors get a chance to meet the people behind the foundation, and judge for themselves if their money is being put to good use. I.e. does this foundation have smart, honest people working for it? If it looks good, donors may write a big check based on their belief that the money will be well spent.
I donated a decent sum to the EFF last year, but if I wanted my father to donate, I'd advise him to go the dinner: it's a painless way to get an education, especially because he has better things to do than read /.
Invite SDMI Bigwigs (Score:2)
-------
Re:Maybe they should change the thrust of their su (Score:2)
As I understand the law, making threats of lawsuits that you do not actually intend to follow through on in order to bully someone into doing what you want is a criminal offense. Isn't it?
Yeah but lying to the public and telling them you weren't going to sue when you were isn't.
Re:Take this motion seriously . . . (Score:2)
My point was, in response the the original post I replied to, that persons do have recourse against bogus claims.
Jerks. (Score:2)
It would be good if tactics like this had reprecussions for the arrogant jerks involved.
Re:DMCA Violations -- Warning Crapflooder!! (Score:2)
No, the person who made the original post to this thread did not indicate that he had copied a post by Mr. Hamrick. He did not, in fact, mention Mr. Hamrick's name at all. Instead, a helpful anonymous poster replied to me, and attributed the source of the original post to Mr. Hamrick.
The original poster did not attribute the source of his materials.
In fact, Declan McCullagh, the well-known Wired magazine reporter, has written about just this subject.
Yes. Although it is a very interesting article [politechbot.com], it does not claim that Mr. Sklyarov is held in solitary confinement, or that the Russian embassy has been denied access to him.
Before my original reply to the thread root, I did search the net, I read the article the original poster linked to at cryptonomicon, and I read the EFF press release, the DOJ press release, and the AP story linked to by the cryptonomicon story. None gave any indication that Mr. Sklyarov is being held in solitary confinement, or that the Russian embassy has been denied access to him.
Look, what is happening to Mr. Sklyarov is bad. The DMCA is bad. We must fight these things, and make it our goal to get him released, and get the onerous parts of the DMCA struck down. But the contents of the original post in this thread are nothing more than wholly unverified rumors. Nothing is gained by ranting in these forums about unverified rumors. Calling the US State Department and ranting about unverified rumors about the treatment of Mr. Sklyarov can only be detrimental to our goal.
Please, people -- when talking to others about this, please be very clear in your mind what is verified fact, and what is unverified rumor. And remember, the facts in this case stand as testament on their own.
Re:DMCA Violations -- Ranting. (Score:2)
OK, I'm done with this thread.
You've proven to anyone reading that you're seriously clueless, and I've proven to anyone reading that I argue with clueless anonymous cowards. I may as well be tilting at windmills.
Re:DMCA Violations Lead to Human Rights Violations (Score:3)
On closer examination, I see that our AC has copied a post, posted by Hamrick nearly 10 hours ago, detailing an email made by Bill Scannell, discussing a phone conversation with Vladimir Katalov, in which Katalov detailed his belief that the Russian Embassy has been denied access to Sklyarov, and that Sklyarov may be held in solitary confinement.
So, as far as rumors go, this one is entirely on the up and up -- it's four or five levels of heresay deep, but at least the heresay is well documented.
This is no worse than most of the crap published on slashdot.
Re:Send the tax refund to the RIAA (Score:2)
Good point (Score:2)
Before I got the note from the IRS, I'd completely forgotten about the refund. I'd already budgeted the rest of the year, and I didn't have any money available for the EFF, especially since I was still financially recovering from my jobless period, but most everything else was covered.
Now, I do have money to give. It was really only a "bonus" because of my own forgetfulness.
Send the tax refund to the EFF? (Score:5)
But now, I'm thinking that this money was intended to serve others. It was set apart to serve causes higher than myself, and now I have the chance to actually choose where that money goes. I don't have to worry about it going to build bombs, or how much overhead the government bureaucrats will take from it.
I can take this money and choose whom it will serve.
Perhaps what we all can do, those of us who find the tax cut irresponsible, is to use our power of choice to send the money where we think it will be valuable.
Right now, the EFF is doing the right thing. But they can't do it all for free. Perhaps it would be best if I were to send my $300 refund to them?
What do you think? What are you going to do with your IRS refund?
Re:DMCA Violations Lead to Human Rights Violations (Score:5)
Say "please," "thank you," and "may I," and the world will be your oyster.
Mixed up! (Score:3)
I don't believe (Score:2)
Thats some highly vitriolic lawyering there!
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
Say my mom has a nice house and some stocks that come to about a million bucks. She kicks off and leaves it to me. Well, currently anything you inherit over $675,000 you owe taxes on... The tax rate starts at 37%. In this hypothetical situation I'd need to cough up $120k in taxes... pretty steep! Assuming I hang on to the stuff, the same thing can happen again when I kick off. Next thing you know, there goes the ol' ancestral homestead.
How is that right?
Do you guys just not do any financial planning?$675,000 is NOT THAT MUCH MONEY when you consider a lifetime of work and investing. Look into the miracle of compounding interest. More people get hit by this tax than you think. It's not just "9 or so farmers." If you have a clue you'll have a lot more than $675k when you kick off too. (Actually the exemption is set to climb over the coming years, to $1M in 2006.)
And I am not some rich la-dee-dah poofter... I'm a dotcom casualty and I am almost eating dog food right now I'm soo hard up, and there's no end in sight. But I'm not fixated on "sticking it to the rich." Sheesh.
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
I'm a pretty libertarian kind of dude, but there needs to be SOME government control, and I think that some government stewardship of natural resources is appropriate.
If the gov't sold off all those parks, they'd make a piddling fee that wouldn't even be remembered in a decade, and the public would lose all that stuff forever -- because big corporations would buy it. There's no way a private organization is going to beat off the likes of Weyerhauser Paper, or General Electric.
We're already getting screwed by how the Feds are mismanaging the radio spectrum. I don't want to get screwed out of anything else!
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
Exactly, thank you. First he says we gotta have estate taxes, then he says that you can worm out of them. So which is it?
RIAA should have funded the project. (Score:2)
His project was quite open and had a resonably sound goal, which was to find weaknesses in the media security system.
If you were going to sell a security system like this wouldnt you want a third party to check your work and find holes before you released it to the mass market? (and as a bonus it was free (comparatively) to them).
Hell they should have funded the project or sponsored one of there own so as to try to avoid that whole DeCSS thing.
But this is the real world and in the real world we put locks on things to keep honest people honest and anyone who says "The emporer has no cloths!" gets thrown in jail. Well at least thats the threat.
But I have to admit, this is not the way I expected this case to go.
Barking dogs vs. biting dogs (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
these briefs are actually entertaining! (Score:3)
I like this part of the Felten Amended Brief the best: "M. A permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the DMCA because it is in excess of Congress' enumerated powers." A request to flat out declare the DMCA unconsitutional.
Think of all the legal cases in the past year that would effectively overturn. Damn near every RIAA and MPAA lawsuit there was! Wouldn't it be great to see the RIAA and MPAA put into bankruptcy by countersuits by people who's civil rights were violated by the bastards?
a precedent is needed (Score:2)
A victory would set a great precedent for the future and make a clear statement that such intimidation won't get very far in the courts
Re:Boring read... (Score:2)
Dude, without a means of resolving jurisdictional disputes, we'd have a heck of a time getting deep into any discussion. T violations are debate's way of moderating -1 off-topic (like this post
In fact, you may not realize it but the stock issues in academic policy debate (Solvency, Harm, Inherency, Topicality, Significance- SHITS) were created with a judicial paradigm in mind. It was thought that these would be the standards by which debate cases would be proven, much like "reasonable doubt" and "premeditation" are important standards for trying murder cases.
But I digress.
Bryguy
Can't take it back now (Score:4)
Since Dr Felten's paper is not submitted to the USENIX conference because of RIAA's threat and that it is now too late for him to do so. There is definite damages done to his academic reputation. There may also be potential financial loses, eg future research grants may depends on works he has done/published etc.
Sorry, but just taking it back now is a bit too later.
====
Re:Donate some $$$ to the EFF! (Score:3)
Please, Slashdot posters, before you post, at least get the facts right! And BTW, there is no such thing as the "DCMA"--it's the "DMCA", which stands for "Digital Millenium Copyright Act".
----------
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hooboy. (Score:2)
Now I'm not anti industry, why I even love metals. But you would think most people would at least take a little time to understand the evil that they are choosing.
But as far as his handouts? He's bought stuff from overseas, if only gas, he's benefited from police protection, even if indirectly, oh and a common currency to name a third. I know no one really things tariffs pay our enourmous military budget.
And just so I'm not just blowing sunshine up your skirt....
Why so crule? Can you really fault people for being ignorant? I can fault them for choosing ignorance, like the person you respond to who by his simple presence in the conversation proves he has access to the information. But what if you're not blessed with that. If you're born and bread in a mining town and come from an era where technology was more of a threat, and people tended to resist change more, how much access to the verifiable truth do you really have? I mean what kind of school system did they have? You know with it being a mining town, the school taught that mining was good, who was on the school board? Mine employees. It's a small society with certain barriers for access, and no one is trying hard to get in. It's not unlike being born into a cult. Maybe you can blame their parents, but then you really reach a level where no one "knew" and very few would have predicted the out come. I think in this way, we as the society who profited from them (and we certainly did), bare some of the responsiblity, albeit very diffusely. Look, they paid a price for their ignorance, cancer, and a nasty kind at that, not to mention a probable host of other problems. But we, the larger society, are the true beneficiaries, more so then they were, so we have an obligation to step in and give back. I might add that our system of government not only at least in practice recognizes this, thanks to liberals, but does a pretty good job of it all things considered. It's no secret, and no wonder, that liberal attitudes are correlated with higher education. High school dropouts like Rush like to claim that liberal institutions allow only liberal minds to succeed. But I think people who know more, better understand how interconnected the world really is, and act accordingly.
Re:Maybe they should change the thrust of their su (Score:2)
The Dmitry Sklyarov case might ultimately lead to the same thing, though I doubt that's much comfort to him as he rots in jail...
Re:Donate some $$$ to the EFF! (Score:2)
Donate some $$$ to the EFF! (Score:5)
If you have not already done so donate some currency to their cause (our cause).
Re:Maybe they should change the thrust of their su (Score:5)
RCW 9.12.010
Barratry.
Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.
=====
Further, some states have Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statutes, which carry tremendous fines. To win a SLAPP suit, one doesn't even need to prove damages, and there's no limit to the amount of money a jury can award.
Re:Maybe they should change the thrust of their su (Score:2)
In this particular case, there should be another avenue for redress. The letter was clearly intended to prevent the recipient from making a speech, and it succeeded in that (I presume due to it being timed so the legal issues couldn't be worked out before the conference). That sounds to me like a civil rights violation -- which is both a tort and a crime. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Bushies to prosecute a corporation, but the professor doesn't have to get permission from the (in)Justice Dept to sue.
Re:Send the tax refund to the EFF? (Score:2)
Paying your debts is morally imperative. Giving away the money that might have paid part of the nation's debts is something else...
Actually, I'm enraged by your claim to "moral" imperatives, but on practical grounds, sending out the $300 checks as an advance on a small tax cut next year is the one intelligent part of the package. We've for once in history got the luxury of a substantial surplus (projected), but if we DON'T use part of it to keep the economy going, the surplus will evaporate as incomes and tax revenues fall. According to economic theory, releasing this money _now_ should help keep the current economic blip from turning into a deep recession. (Or worse -- the stock market hasn't become so overinflated or dropped so hard since 1929... But I think federal and state gov'ts helped turn that crash into the Great Depression by initially raising taxes to cover increased welfare bills -- even FDR initially tried to keep a balanced budget in 1933. Doing the opposite as early as possible is just good sense.)
But in the long run, the surplus has got to be paid off. It's a pipeline that takes several hundred billion dollars a year in interest payments from ordinary Americans and into the pockets of some of the richest Americans. Paying it off as soon as possible is the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do. The majority of W's tax cut not only jeopardizes paying off the surplus while kicking in too slowly to help with the present economic slowdown, but it's also ridiculous on its face. Cut the estate tax for ten years, then bring it back? Make college tuition deductible for just four years?? (Does that have anything to do with the fact that W has twins in college right now???)
The one good counter-argument is that, judging by history, if the money is available, Congress will spend it. (And if the money wasn't available, they'd spend it anyhow.) With a (mostly) Republican congress and president for the first time since Eisenhower, "smaller government" now being the Republican mantra, and no Cold War to suck up the cash, things really ought to be different. But I think that history has shown that no matter how much Rep. voters want smaller gov't, the people who win office on that ticket really don't want to shrink their own roles... BUT, there was one sensible suggestion made right at the beginning of the congressional session: tie tax cuts to paying down the debt, so any vote to spend more would automatically be a vote to tax more. It wasn't the Dems that shot that down.
What I want is for them to cut spending A WHOLE LOT, kill entire gov't departments (Education, HUD, DEA, BATF, and about 3/4 of the EPA, DOE, and FBI just for starters), slash taxes an equal amount, pay off the debt, and then we can really cut taxes. But you can't always get what you want...
Re:Australia has similar stupid laws too (Score:2)
Re:Great suit (Score:2)
Re:Maybe they should change the thrust of their su (Score:4)
Threatening to sue someone frivolously is grounds for a countersuit. It is not a crime.
Threatening to report someone to the police if they don't do what you ask is a crime (in some jurisdictions yada yada IANAL blah blah blah).
Threatening to sue someone is just the first step in civil law. If you have a case under the law, you might win right there. If you don't, you fight. Countersuit, appeal, drain the bank account, settle whenever, are all options for what happens after. Welcome to our world.
So no, it's not a crime, but an idle threat might be grounds for a countersuit, and a filed, frivolous lawsuit is definitely grounds for a damn solid countersuit.
IANAL, I just know this one thing. And it might be wrong.
--Blair
"What I say three times is true."
$250 a head? (Score:2)
Damn, where the hell are they that prices are so expensive? Here in NY, its far less than $250 to get head.
Why your analogy is full of holes: (Score:2)
Secondly, people don't pay $250 a plate for such dinners because the food or the service is just that good, but because they want most of the money to go to the EFF. On the other hand, I can't think of anybody who buys a CD because they want Sony or AOL-Time/Warner to have most of the money.
Third, if you want to get food from somebody else, or get the recipe from the chef and make it yourself, you can. You'll have a hard time legally getting CDs or even guitar tabs from someone other than the RIAA, though.
And last (that I can think of at this second) but not least, the EFF hasn't tried to make the act of jumping a fence a felony offense in and of itself.
Re:Death to the DMCA (Score:2)
They basically tried to get the DMCA drafted to be so tough that nobody would want to risk taking it to court. Backing down to an intimidating letter that alludes to the dire consequences of violating ridiculously draconian law is much safer for corporations, and especially individuals who don't want to go to jail for a decade or so. To them, the possible consequences are too grave, even if the risk factor is low.
...
string* plamenessFilter =
Death to the DMCA (Score:3)
Facing the DMCA is like playing chicken with a cardboard Mac truck. It's big, it's bad, but if you were to ever call its bluff, it probably won't survive.
...
string* plamenessFilter =
Scientology (Score:4)
In a rather unexpected move however, the Dutch PTT, through Planet Internet [planetinternet.nl] added themselves to the defendant list, giving the little ISP's some more weight and causing another court to handle the case. I may be off on the details here, but those are not relevant at this point, it's the idea that matters now.
I am wondering if the US court system allows this kind of 'adding yourself' to the list of defendants (is 'defendant' the right word? I hope so...). IF there is no secret agenda behind this courtcase, like KGB/CIA meddling or earlier crimes comitted in the US by Sklyarov, and the whole case is ONLY about publishing/speaking on how to break a ROT13 encryption, I would be HAPPY to 'add' myself to this case and share Sklyarov's destiny. The same would apply for Dr Felten actually (just to not get smacked down as being 'Offtopic') but hey, I cannot claim to be as smart as Dr. Felten.
I figure if enough people and perhaps companies (there MUST be companies out there that are very much AGAINST this DMCA) will rise against this (from what it looks like, and admitting that I don't know all the facts) GRAVE INJUSTICE. I just cannot stand people being treated like the most vicious criminals for violating laws that go against every common sense, and not violating it in a brutal way, but merely by exposing pure STUPIDITY.
Anybody with legal knowledge, please post on here if this is at all possible and if there have been precedents like this where many many people voluntarily added themselves to a courtcase.
Pull an Adobe (Score:2)
Re:Australia has ... - Life under the USA (Score:2)
Its a deal with the devil, and like all such arrangements it looks wonderful until you realise that you have sold your soul for trinkets.
Others may see that we have 'support' from the USA, and a relatively healthy western economy. What they don't see is that our 'support' lasts right up until the point where it is inconvenient for our masters^H^H^H^H^H^H valued partners, whereupon it is instantly dropped, but we are never allowed to question the dictates that come the other way. And they are dictates, make no mistake. What they don't see is that our economy was a lot healthier before we gave up England as our overlord and switched to Uncle Sam.
Being a 'valued ally' of the United States of America means that if you disagree with them, you are 'threatening that friendship'. Ask Noriega or Hussein what that means. If you show sufficient agreement, however, the rest of the world will dismiss your views - rightly - as a subservient echo.
It is a Faustian deal, and many Australians wish we had never made it.
____________
''Why, this is Hell, nor am I out of it.''
Mephistopheles, Marlowe's Tragedy of Doctor Faustus
Re:Profit?! hahaha (Score:2)
Re:what a waste of time and effort (Score:2)
Then, while I readily admit that the Adobe encryption case is far more likely to win popular support, in the courts a case involving squelched scientific speech will probably fare better. The legal precedent, and a signal to the recording industry that they cannot walk over programmers anyway they like, are both important to keep DMCA litigation to a minimum. Getting there with the Felten case is easier, as that effort has already been stepped up.