Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Sklyarov, Bunner (DVD CCA) Hearings Thursday 189

Posted by timothy from the bring-popcorn-double-header dept.
Seth Schoen writes: "On Thursday, in San Jose, CA, free speech supporters can enjoy a double-header in Federal and State courts. At 9:30 in the morning, Dmitry Sklyarov is expected to be arraigned before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, and there will be a preliminary hearing in U.S. v. Sklyarov. sf.freesklyarov.org has details on the time and location. Thursday afternoon, about a mile away, a California appellate court will hear arguments in DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Andrew Bunner -- Bunner has appealed the trial court's preliminary injunction against him. He's asked the appellate court to overturn the injunction, which forbids him to post DeCSS code pending a trial. (This is the "California trade secret" DVD/DeCSS case, separate from the New York DMCA case.)" Update: 08/21 09:27 PM EDT by michael : According to the EFF, the Sklyarov hearing has been postponed until next week.

"Sklyarov is represented by Joseph Burton; Bunner is represented by the First Amendment Project and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF Sklyarov/Bunner media release has time and location information for this hearing, too. Both hearings will be open to the public; please dress nicely if you attend. You can probably attend both, because the Sklyarov hearing should be over before the Bunner hearing starts. The Federal court (N.Dist.Cal.), for the Sklyarov case, is on the 5th floor, 280 South 1st Street; the State appellate court (6th App. Dist. Ct.), for the DVD CCA case, is at 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060."

Interestingly enough, the Washington Post ran an editorial knocking (if not actually blasting) the DMCA, with Sklyarov the example of what's wrong with the thing. Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte takes a slightly different tack, but raises the same troubling questions. (Thanks to fredistheking and SgtChairebourne for the links.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sklyarov, Bunner (DVD CCA) Hearings Thursday More

Sklyarov, Bunner (DVD CCA) Hearings Thursday

Comments Filter:
  • That's the title of the washington post article. Does ANY actual person like the DMCA? I can't ever think of anyone not spouting corporate drivel actually claiming to like the law.


    Why was there no reply button on this article?

    • There in a tight spot. They can't go back with out admitting that its bad law, but if they go forward it's bad press. It will be intresting to see what happens, but what ever happens, you can be sure it won't be in the name of justice.
      • When Felton sued, the RIAA found that they just walked into a PR nightmare. They could not classify him as an evil hacker. Now, the issue of fair use, academic freedom, is now at the front of the argument -- they can't muddy the waters with hacker accusations and claims of millions of $$ of pirated materials.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • *sigh* The DMCA. Designed to protect Hollywood from nasty evil hackers who, but for that wonderful law...

        No wonder they can't make a decent hacker movie!
      • sigh* The DMCA. Designed to protect Hollywood from nasty evil hackers who, but for that wonderful law, would be going into video stores right now and giving Hollywood their money. Stupid gits.

        While this seems fair and equitable to me, you are missing a not so obvious point. (Not that I blame you, it's not the most ethical of points either) While Hollywood and the associated industries can make a moderately nice sum of cash now, they are more than willing to forfeit that for now, in exchange for a future stranglehold on all "IP". From a strategic point of view, this is brilliant, as they stand to more than make up for current lost revenue in the long run. IMO this is more akin to raping and pillaging the enemy, even butchering their babies, just to win the war. Sure it works, but what more can be said? Barring a miracle, which is the majority of citizens waking up and have a clue or two, there isn't much that can be done.
      • It's my laptop I'm not allowed to play CSS encrypted DVDs on.

        Hmm... well, technically, you should still be allowed to PLAY them. You simply aren't allowed to GIVE DeCSS to anyone else. Actually obtaining it in the first place is a little bit of a grey area, since you would be one party in the trafficking of a banned item, but I suppose you could claim it just magically appeared on your hard drive. :-) I've never heard much discussion about the legality of obtaining DeCSS, merely about making it available for others.

        Bastards.

        OK, this part I can agree with.

    • "Does ANY actual person like the DMCA?"

      Yes. Who? MPAA chief Jack Valenti; those in Washington who helped sign it into law; those at the RIAA; Colleen Pouliot, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Adobe; ... etc. The list goes on...

    • Well the people who bought and lobbied congress obviously like it - in fact they've said so repeatedly.

    • The DMCA isn't all bad. Yes, the anti-circumvention provisions are pretty much all bad IMO. However, it also did bring copyright law into the 21st century.

      For example, under a strict reading of copyright law, web proxies should have been illegal, as they republish copyrighted information. The DMCA made proxies legal. I think most of us would agree that this is a good thing.

  • that this will begin the demise of the DMCA. :)

    (or at lesat they see how wrong it is and fix it.)
  • Arent people usually arraigned within 48 hours? Why has this taken weeks to get to this point?

    DMCA violator or not, it seems that this guy should not have been in jail anywhere near this long.

    • 48 hrs when arrested by a local police dept, but this is the FBI were dealing with. Recall how long it took them to get some paperwork to Tim McVeigh, it is here you will find your answer.
    • It's my understanding that under the 6th amendment one has the right to a speedy trial. And that this was further defined by the Speedy Trial Act 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1) to be within 70 days.

      Under these guidelines Sklyarov should be having his trial any day now, rather than an arraignment. Unless he waived his right to a speedy trial. Was this the case? Does his "side" need additional time to prepare or should this be something that is pushed through sooner rather than later to get this guy home?

      INAL but as far as I can see there is a lot of talk about getting Sklyarov home ASAP and what seems to be very little getting done.

      • Technically, doesn't that right to a speedy trial only apply to US citizens?

        Besides, they might be hoping that if they wait long enough, all the fuss will die down and they can do what they please.

        inigima
      • You're only selectively quoting the statute, which reads:

        "In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs."

        18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1). Barring waiver or special circumstances, the seventy-day clock does not begin to run until Mr. Sklyarov's arraignment.

        • I realize I my be wrong about the law, most of my info was paraphrased from web sites who got it from somewhere else. Thanks for the clarification.

          What is the time period for an indictment then? It doesn't seem like this should be allowed to go on indefinatly either. For instance would it be possible to hold Mr. Sklyarov on bail in the US for 10 years before his indictment? This of course is an exaduration, but the theory is the same. In the end, bail for this guy isn't the same as for someone who lives and has his family in the US.

    • Arent people usually arraigned within 48 hours? Why has this taken weeks to get to this point?



      Not necessarily. Bond has to be set within 72 hours of arrest, weekends and holidays not included. A charge must be filed at that time also. Now, assuming I remember Federal criminal procedure, which I don't promise,'filed' means a grand jury must indict, in the case of felonies. I think a Fed misdemeanor requires only the filing of a complaint with the court.[1]



      The other immediate proceeding is the bond hearing, as I said before. In districts without a pre-written bond schedule, the hearing is where the judge determines an appropriate bond in light of the level of risk posed by the defendant, etc. It can also be for a defendant to ask for a lower bond than established by a pre-set bond schedule.



      Arraignment is a separate proceeding, AFTER the charging. The arraignment is where the defendant actually enters a plea.



      FWIW, "Speedy Trial," at least in most states, means only that the trial itself begins within six months of the charging. Time spent at large, outside of the court's jurisdiction, etc., usually doesn't count.

      • FWIW, "Speedy Trial," at least in most states, means only that the trial itself begins within six months of the charging. Time spent at large, outside of the court's jurisdiction, etc., usually doesn't count.



        I just looked at my notes again. I think it's more like 70 days from entry of plea now, in Federal cases.

  • There's a wonderful new encryption algorithm. I call it ROT 0. You take the text and encrypt it by rotating it 0 letters. I shall use this encryption algorithm in all my copyrighted works. Now I can go sue/arrest anyone who distributes a program that copies pure text!
  • Its fucking sad that in a country supposedly founded on free speech, we have to resort to this bullshit. The only reason major industry developed in early america, is because someone had the guts and the knowledge to memorize the plans, carry them across the Atlantic in his head, and reproduce them in the states. Now just making a device that makes it possible for someone else to circumvent a protection device, which didn't used to always be illegal, can be jailed. Sometimes you NEED to break the protection for legitimate reasons under fair-use. Whatever happend to fair-use anyway?

    • what happened to it? The business world bought it out of existence... Do you expect them to let us figure out how they do stuff and not do anything about it? COME ON! This is America for christ's sake.
      • in a country supposedly founded on free speech

      What have you been smoking? First Amendment? Afterthought, not foundation.

      • First Amendment? Afterthought, not foundation.
        Actually, the Constitutional Convention operated with the thought that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution would be barred to it, and the base Constitution does not give the government the power to regulate speech. Therefore, the drafters considered it safe. The state ratifying committees, however, wanted explicit protections, leading to twelve Amendments being proposed as a condition of committees' ratifications.

        An additional argument can be made that the founding of the country goes back to July 4, 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. Under this argument, freedom of speech would be part of the inalienable right of liberty.

        <Off Topic>Personally, I think that the state Constitution ratifying committees would have been wise to demand a stricter wording of the commerce clause, also.</Off Topic>

        Chris Beckenbach

  • Where's the link to the RealVideo feed of the court depositions?

    What? You mean there's no newsfeed? How come?

  • We must not forget (Score:3, Interesting)

    by friday2k ( 205692 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2001 @06:04PM (#2202447)
    and /. and even the Washington Post are helping. There is too much at stake for the whole community, science and simply the people that this must be taken the whole way through. Protection of digital content is understandable and needs also our support. If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that. But if people pointing out flaws in standards are punished it will be much worse. Science will suffer. Innovation will suffer. The industry must understand that this case is not about piracy. It is about fair use. And the work of people like Niels Ferguson or Dmitry Sklyarov might actually help the industry to find a standard that protects the owner's rights and does not restrict fair use of copyrighted material that I and everybody else out there purchased!

    • Re:We must not forget (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos@nospAm.chipped.net> on Tuesday August 21, 2001 @06:32PM (#2202533) Homepage Journal
      If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games.

      Do you really think that? Are you saying that there are no artists who enjoy playing music just for fun? Are there no writers who write stories becuase they love making worlds come to life? No game designers who just want to create some fun and/or bragging right for thier friends?

      Honestly, I think the absolute best possble thing for the creative fields would be if the corporate element just vanished. Sure you wouldn't see nationally-known artists making millions in front of 50,000 seat auditoriums, but is that how you want to appreciate music?

      I would seriously prefer local groups, making realistic money (money like a school teacher would make), playing good, interesting, original music to the current sludge that comes out of the entertainment machine.

      Fame and money is not a right. It is a strange abboration that somehow grew out of the machine-like corperate quest for money. Just look around at the real world. You don't see world-renound lecturers shouting out scathing political commentaries to hords of screaming fans who paid $139 for a seat. You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.

      It would not be a terrible thing is the score was evened out a little.
      • Not every art form can be reproduced by four guys in a garage!

        I work in the anime industry; good example. Anime -is- a corporate art form. Large companies employ vast numbers of artists in a collective endeavor to produce a single finished product, adhering more-or-less to a very limited number of creative visions. This isn't like music, where a garage band can sound better than a touring rock group, or like software, where an agglomeration of independent workers can evolve a working code base. It -would not exist- if it wasn't somebody's job to make it.

        Even on the micro scale... I know my job can be reproduced by somebody working with a home computer, especially because I use more or less the same tools they would. But I also know that the hobbyists out there don't -do- as good of a job as I do, simply because I'm paid to sit here and put the time in, and they aren't. Even the most dedicated otaku start to glaze over after the fifth subtitling pass.

        I'm not saying that the DMCA is a good law. Heck, we don't even -use- CSS if the licensors let us get away without it. But not everybody producing good art is looking for fame; some of us just want a paycheck, so we can spend our time making art and not flipping burgers. They have to get paid too!

        • Re:We must not forget (Score:3, Insightful)

          by The_Sock ( 17010 )
          Hobby or not, you would be surprised at how anal people will get over detail when something is their baby, their pride and joy.

          The people who do it because they love to are the type of people I'd rather have making the music I listen to, writting the books I read, the programs I use, building the house I live in (yes, believe it or not, some people (myself included) love physical 'labour'), fixing my car, or doing anything for me.

          Note the number of books titled 'The Joy of _____' and the severe lack of books titled 'How to Make Money doing ______'. (On a side note, notice the number of spam letters that are about 'How to Make Money doing...' and the lack of 'The Joy of doing...' spams)

          People who view it as work are the ones I'll avoid. A good hobbyist/employee does his work for the love and joy of doing it. A good creator loves to create, so he/she creates. They do not create because they feel the need for money. They will put more into a creation then anyone who views their job as work.

          These people view the job as the benificial part, and the money as a nice bonus.

          This is not to say if you get paid, you will not do a good job. If you can find a job you love, and don't view as work, then more power to you. You're in the right field for yourself.

          And this does not break down around what you may consider menial jobs, such as a janitor. I've met janitors who love their jobs. In high school there was a janitor who loved being around the kids (And he wasn't a pedophile, what's this world coming to?!). He didn't want to teach, he just loved the atmosphere, the people, and loved doing the job. I used to think this was very strange, until I grew up. I got a job I love doing and though some may think someone programming their routers or ensuring the server they keep their work on keeps their work as a lower life form (I don't know, you may not think of people like that, some do, not accusing you of anything), I quite enjoy it (Especially seeing the people who do think of me as a lower life form begin to weep when all their hard work is gone, because some strange bug (triggered by something he did of course) wiped out his home directory. (Miraculously every other users home directory was left unscathed. I'm a spiteful bastard.)) I enjoy my job. I fix computers for free for some people. It's not so they owe me something, it's not to show off my 'k-rad skillz', sometimes it's because she's hot but... I just love to solve the problem and make it work once again. These people pay me back however or not, doesn't matter to me.

          In short, if you love doing something, you'll do it very well. If you do it very well, you will be well compensated for it, both monetarily, and more importantly, spiritually.
          • The problem is that the people who love doing art will have to get regular jobs if the art doesn't pay. And at least my experience is that after putting in the work and dedication needed for a full time job, and whatever passes for a life, there is little energy left to produce masterworks of art, or to practice and develop your art skills.

            Would your janitor friend have kept janiting if he didn't get paid?
      • ...No game designers who just want to create some fun and/or bragging right for thier friends?

        No kidding. It makes me wonder if the poster of the parent of your comment has ever taken a look at the Quake III mod scene [planetquake.com]. There are even plenty of map makers, modelers, etc., etc...

        I know of a few people who write music and distribute it for free, just for the love of doing it.

        I myself spend many an hour writing the Alternate Fire mod [planetquake.com], just because I like to see people have fun.

        Yes, without money, people have no motivation to do anything at all.

      • Re:We must not forget (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Velex ( 120469 )

        Remember, though, who is responsible for all that garbage. What drives the "artists" to produce the junk you hear over the radio? What could motivate them to keep up what they probably know is immoral and wrong. What could prossibly turn a business into a government? The only force powerful enough to do that is stupid people in large numbers.

        Are you kidding? The public loves that trash! Eating it by the repititive record is pure bliss for the public! The "artists" have listened to their audience well, and the uncreative shouting they call music is what they want. It's simple supply and demand: the public wants trash and the artists give them trash.

        Keep in mind that a national market means national competition. Garage bands that actually put creatitivity and pasion into their music just don't have that same formula that the "artists" do. They get trampled. Their fight is hopeless -- the public's made up its mind.

        The problem with things like complex science and politics is that they just are as entertaining as hearing someone shout "fuck you" for five minutes times fifteen songs on a CD. If people were interested in scientific development, there would be demand and therefor money in science. If people cared about politics, there would be demand for good politicians there too. If people were interested in education as personally as they are interested in their music, teachers would be making easially over one hundred thousand dollars per year. But, there's no demand, so there's no money.

        To even out the score, you either have to raise the intelligence level of the public, or use communism. Good luck with the former, and the latter has yet to be implemented correctly among humans because of the former.

      • You don't see world-renound lecturers shouting out scathing political commentaries to hords of screaming fans who paid $139 for a seat. You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.

        No, you don't. Specifically, the fans aren't screaming, and the tickets cost more like $1390 (and up). Political figures often give speeches at which the cost of attendence runs to four, and even five figures (hint: see Clinton, William J.). No, the fans aren't screaming, but that's because they (usually) have (slightly) more class than the average teenage rock fan. And "world-renowed" lecturers (particularly politicians) do get mobbed as hey step out of their strech limousines (again, see Clinton, William J.), even after they are out of the situation which originally thrust them into the limelight.

        Fame and money are not rights, I agree; the opportunity to earn them, however, should not be restricted. If a performer wishes to sign a record contract and make big money, why should they be prevented from doing so? Can every slashdotter out there honestly say that he does not like any "popular" artist, and that he has never bought even one CD, or attended one concert, by such a group? I know I can't.

        Furthermore, what of people famous in areas other than the performing arts? Has John Carmack earned his fame and money? How about Linus Torvalds--has he earned his name recognition? What about Stallman, Raymond, or even Cmdr Taco? Even Bill Gates earned his fame (or infamy, as the case may be)--his money may be a different story, but his name recognition is certainly deserved. Outside of software, what about famous engineers and technologists: Bill Lear, the father of the business jet, the eight track, and the car stereo, among other things--did he earn his fame and fortune? What of the thousands of inventors who created something, or improved something, that took hold in the market--have those people earned their fame and their money, or should they be ignored.

        Fact is, if people can't profit from their works, the progress of science and technology will slow. It would not necessarily cease, as there would always be "backyard builders," but without financial rewards (either cash or other tangible compensation), there would be little incentive to invent; exacerbating this situation would be the fact that "inventor" or "researcher" would necessarily be relegated to hobby status--you have to pay the bills, and if you can't do it with academic work, then that work must, must take a secondary role in your life.

        I agree that the system has problems, and that certain no-talent hacks end up being paid millions for screeching out noises that make my dog run for the door, but they have managed to convince people that purchasing recordings of that noise is a worthwhile expenditure of their money; by so doing, they have earned the money. While you and I can think of better uses for it, they have the right to spend it as they wish. If they were to see some of the purchases we might make with the same money (hardware, garage band CD's, hardware, ballet/opera tickets, hardware...), they might say we are nuts. Who is right, and who is wrong? Or are both right--perhaps they really do enjoy listening to the latest from Britney Spears, N*SYNC, and whatever else the industry has told them to like--more power to them. If you remove the incentive for those artists to perform their works, then the people who do enjoy their work, for whatever reason, would miss out on it. While some might think this a good thing, doing so would restrict their freedom, their right to choose for themselves what they listen to/watch/think about/what have you.

        No, fame and money are not rights; the option to choose what you like, and the option to choose what or whom you will support, are. If enough people choose to support a given artist, why should that artist be denied the opportunity to reap the rewards of their work? Denying them that opportunity stifles the market, and ultimately reduces the choices available to all. Remember, every man who reduces the liberty available to another sets a precedent that will eventually reach back to himself, and probably bite him in the ass.

      • I would seriously prefer local groups, making realistic money (money like a school teacher would make), playing good, interesting, original music to the current sludge that comes out of the entertainment machine.

        I think this is an excellent idea, and one of the best things about it is that we can do this, legally. (Which is not to say that we shouldn't fight the DMCA.)

        How? When you're spending the your money on music, make sure you get it into the hands of real people (via Fairtunes [fairtunes.com], for example). There's loads of great stuff out there being created by individuals in their garages (or whatever). The kids at Assembly [assembly.org] completely blow me away.

        If you must listen to Brittany (ugh), tape it off the radio.

        --Mike

      • Are you saying that there are no artists who enjoy playing music just for fun? Are there no writers who write stories becuase they love making worlds come to life? No game designers who just want to create some fun and/or bragging right for thier friends?

        Sure there's people like that, but they are only a small part of the whole. There are a lot of art forms that just can't be created by a couple of people working on it part time. It takes a lot of money to produce a movie. I even takes a lot of money to record, produce and market an album. The world will miss out on a lot of creative works if the artists are forced to work full time jobs to feed themselves while they create. These people are providing a product that people want. It has real value to others. Why shouldn't they be able to make mony to support themselves from it.

        I would seriously prefer local groups, making realistic money (money like a school teacher would make), playing good, interesting, original music to the current sludge that comes out of the entertainment machine.

        That's great for you. You have every right to that opinion. Just don't force that opinion on me. I may also like that local band that you're listening to, however I'll never hear them if you have your way. Why? Because they'll never be able to afford to market their music. Putting music on a service like napster isn't much of a marketing plan. I'm not going to spend days listening to crap to find a song or two that I like. Of course there can be review web pages, that showcase music that I might like, but how do those web pages pay the bills? If you haven't noticed, banner adds aren't bringing in much revenue these days.
        If you make it so people can't make money off of their creative works, then creativity becomes a luxury for those who can afford it. Not everyone want's to work in services or manufacturing industries and work on their art on the side, and they shouldn't have to.

        Fame and money is not a right.

        No. Fame and money are something consumers can provide in return for something they feel has value.

        You don't see world-renound lecturers shouting out scathing political commentaries to hords of screaming fans who paid $139 for a seat.

        Political "fundraisers" often charge considerably more than $139 a seat. Clinton makes a lot of money lecturing. Politics has been very profitable for many journalists, comentators, and politicians.

        You don't see scientists mobbed by teenagers when they step out of thier stretched limos.

        That's because teenagers aren't very interested in science. I hope you don't judge all creative works on what teenagers think of them. People pay a lot of money to go to seminars where scientists speak. My company has paid for me to go to several training classes where an expert in his/her field has taught about how they go about doing something. This is also a creative work.

        It would not be a terrible thing is the score was evened out a little.

        What score are you evening out by stealing copyrighted works? What did the creators do to you? How have you been wronged? Who else did they wrong? And how does it justify you getting something for free and the person who created it getting nothing?

        I don't like the DCMA either. I buy CDs. I then make a copy for my car. I rip MP3s to play on my portable player, or at work. I also like to make CDs which have the songs I like on them rather than carying around an CD with only a couple of songs on it I like. This is something the RIAA is preventing with the way they are attacking piracy. I don't know if it's intentional on their part, or if it's just a side effect of their attempts to fight piracy.

        I have a friend who owns a really small record label. He represents small local groups like the ones you seem to prefer. He's seriously concerned that online piracy may put him out of business, and he may not be wrong. Neither those bands or their producer makes much money when the paly at those small bars. They make a little more money off the CD sales at the shows. Most of their advertising is word of mouth and some fliers in the bars. If they lose a significant protion of their CD sales to pirating, they aren't going to be able to afford the equiment to put on the shows, and more importantly to record the music. These aren't rich people. They don't live in a big house, I'd be surprised if it were worth more than $200k. They do have one nice car, but the other is a beat-up old truck they cart the equipment around in. How is stealing from them evening out some score?
    • If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that. But if people pointing out flaws in standards are punished it will be much worse.

      You seem to be suggesting that the abolition of all uses of copyright circumvention measures is like the abolition of alcohol. Alcohol is only dangerous when abused, not when used in moderation. By the same token, if I use Elcomsoft's package to regain access to something I legally purchased, that's a far different thing from using it to make copies for everyone and rip off the guy who made it.

      So that's a good analogy. Making it illegal doesn't stop people from using it -- it just causes the very minor problems to become major ones.
    • If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that.

      Gee, I wonder how has mankind been able to survive without copyright for so many centuries. Didn't anyone tell Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Seneca, Diogenes, Epicur and all the other writers and philosophers that there can be no art without copyright? I guess not, since they somehow did manage to live and create without a publishing industry to "manage" and "protect" their precious "rights" for them...
    • If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games.


      Hmmm. Somebody needs a history lesson... Some of the most vibrant forms of music have survived entirely in the public domain (traditional folk music, f. ex.) and even art music (what most people mistakenly call "Classical") has survived for quite a long time without copyright protection. The majority of the money in music has always been performances, and even with the modern feature of recordings, these are as much important for advertizing purposes for the artist as they are a money maker.


      Video is more of a problem and so are games, but movies make most of their money on the big screen, and this similar to the music industry.


      So what about the game industry? Piracy is most damaging here because it makes the costs of the games higher for everyone. So here is the only example you have provided that may be true. However, online pay-to-play gaming is becoming more popular and it is unclear how this changes things. I personally would prefer to use games that run on my own system-- and for this I gladly pay-- once.

      • HA (Score:1)

        by kaxman ( 466911 )
        Who told you that movies make their money off the big screen? Didn't you ever see Spaceballs?

        "Merchandising, merchandising! Where the real money from the movie is made!"
        --Yogurt

        Let's see you copy Spaceballs the lunchbox and distribute it to all your friends over the internet. No wonder Hollywood isn't bitching yet...

        Goodnight all,
        kaxman
    • We must also not forget what copyright is: a temporary monopoly over the reproduction of a work. After the copyright expired, the work becomes part of the public domain. Nothing more. When "digital rights" systems are thrown in, that temporary monopoly becomes perpetual. And when you make it illegal to break those systems, perpetual becomes perminant.

      Let's say a DVD's copyright expires (assuming Congress doesn't extend it again). You STILL can't use DeCSS on that DVD because there are other DVD's whose copyright has not expired yet. This is the consumer threat to digital rights management. Its a great benefit for the publishers though... keep releasing works "protected" by the same system and EVERYTHING becomes perpertually locked away. And keep claiming that these "circumvention devices" be forbidden because they can break the protection of works that are still under copyright.
      • If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that

      Oh no! No more Britney Spears albums! No more movies packed with "stars" who get paid $20 million dollars to flash their silicon pumped tits, or to hoot and holler and pound their chests in lieu of actual acting! No more Daikatanas!

      Quality content comes from rewarding dedicated artists, not from paying whores to make it loud and sleazy. The old rules of economics were: make it good, and they will want to pay. The new rules are: just make it, because they must pay. Big step forward, huh?

  • That's a well-written and clear brief in the Bunner case -- but the EFF's repeated references to "Proctor & Gamble _v_ Bankers Trust" would be a lot more compelling if they'd bothered to make themselves aware that the company is "Procter & Gamble". One hopes that the appellate panel is less critical than I or Mr. Bunner will certainly lose -- not loose! -- his appeal.

  • Adobe's lawyers are quite busy! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sdo1 ( 213835 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2001 @06:12PM (#2202468) Journal
    This link [uscourts.gov] from sf.freesklyarov.org [freesklyarov.org] shows that Adobe is a pretty busy company when it comes to swinging the lawyers about.

    I see two other Adobe Systems, Inc. cases on there plus the Skylarov case (which Adobe isn't officially involved in, but it was their actions that brought about the arrest.

    -S

  • I just went to the Washington Post story. While I agree on the points they make, I have one little question. Who's the author? There does not appear to be any credit whatsoever. Anyone?
    • The editorial stories are decided on by committee and are deliberately unsigned.
      See http://washpost.com/news_ed/editorial/ [washpost.com] for their description.
    • Maybe I'm wrong, but i always thought that Editorials were done by the Editors. If that's the case, then the current Editor of the Washington Post is Fred Hiatt. Therefore, he wrote the piece in question.

      Am I wrong?

    • A committee of semi-literate chimps. Their editorials are written by a committee, and one can usually identify the primary author by the voice of a piece.

      Don't bother patting The Washington Post on the back just yet. They are notoriously uninformed, and their editorials appear to regurgitate conventional wisdom rather than taking a leadership role. In other words, as soon as somebody at a D.C. cocktail party figures out that he or she may benefit somehow, someway, under the DMCA, the Post will turn tail, without explanation or apology.

      • If the accused had been one of their reporters, the words "chilling effect" and "First Amendment" would have been all over that piece. They clearly don't really understand what's at stake here.

        I'm going to write them a letter mentioning that foreign researchers like Alan Cox are already suppressing research due to the DMCA. Maybe if I mention the sainted Katharine Graham, they'll sit up and take notice...
  • Aw cmon, you couldn't have added 3 spaces?

  • What Dimitry can do in the meantime... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Could someone please put Dimitry in touch with Adobe about their Job ID 01-0011213?

    "As a senior computer scientist at Adobe, you will help define and implement PKI-based security features for Acrobat in the areas of digital signatures and encryption."

    Looks like they got rid of the last idiot who implemented the stupid XOR algorithm. Personally, I think anyone other than Dmitry who fills this job has got the rest of the high-tech community laughing behind his or her back. :)

    Credit for finding this amusing listing goes to Rick Moen on the free-sklyarov mailing list archive. [zork.net]

  • Jerry Pournelle's column: ... "His wife and children, offered the chance to come to the U.S. to visit him, declined on the grounds that they did not want to come to such a fearfully unfree place as the United States of America." ...

    As many wonderful people and scenery as the USA has (hi Toofolk!), lately their government scares me too.

  • Hope. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by T300bps ( 250279 )
    Hope that this at least alters the DMCA.

    I think that we're very lucky that newspapers like the Washington Post are actually taking the time to point out to readers what precisely is happening, and what's wrong with it. We're extremely fortunate that this hasn't turned into another Kevin Mitnick scenario (read: "RUSSIAN HACKER THREATENS DIGITAL COPYRIGHTS: speaks at evil hacker convention and corrupts America's youth!)

    As someone else on this thread pointed out, intellectual property/copyright/patent laws have never been this stringent. In traditional copyright law, a certain degree of copying and piracy is expected. I remember that my friends in high school were basically a tiny, living Napster server. Mix tapes for everyone. And let's not forget the fact that sometimes one needs to photocopy newspapers, books, magazines, etc. for school or personal research. . .

    The big irony here is that the first DMCA arrest wasn't someone running a massive piracy ring. It was a foreign national who came to speak about the scientific ramnifications of a technology. It was not in the public interest to arrest Sklyarov. I can't think of any way to argue that it is.

    In many ways, this reflects the current political culture in the US, and the direction it's developing in. We've been rapidly developing a legal system that shoots first (and doesn't always ask questions later). Knee-jerk reactions and "tough on (X)" legislation is pretty much the rule, and becoming moreso by the day. There's a general atmosphere of political apathy and helplessness among those I know, largely because these things are becoming more and more blindingly obvious (and harder to stop).

    Lawmakers have traditionally been pretty conservative regarding print copyright legislation. It wasn't until I was in high school that Kinko's started posting that they weren't responsible for copyright infringement. It's only really been in the last 10 years that the US Govt. has come down so incredibly hard on these sorts of violations, and largely in the name of corporate interests at that.

    The next 10 years are going to be interesting. I encourage those of you in the United States to write some letters, make some phone calls, and send some e-mail. If you've got cash to burn, donate to the appropriate causes and/or lobby.

    T3/Dev
    • In general I agree with your comment, but I have to take issue with this statement.

      In traditional copyright law, a certain degree of copying and piracy is expected.

      The law never found a certain degree of copying and piracy to be acceptable. The law allowed copying ofr fair use. This includes making a copy to listen to in your car, or compiling an album of songs you like from other albums. If also covers free speach issues like using a portion of a copyrighted work in a critique. Fair use is not piracy. Your high school friends making coppies of tapes for everyone was illegal then, and is illegal now. Just because no one caught them and prosecuted them doesn't mean it was legal.

  • You reap what you sow.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos@nospAm.chipped.net> on Tuesday August 21, 2001 @06:54PM (#2202604) Homepage Journal
    For decades the dominant media-marketriod elite
    have been carefully cultivating the western mind. We have been taught that shiny, colorful, noisy things are good. We have slowly developed a powerful, salivating passion for these things. It is more important for us to buy the latest CDs, the trediest clothes, the fastest cars, at an easy 1000%-10000% markup over thier cost to produce than it is to pay the rent, or buy groceries. It is a far graver misfortune to our minds to miss one "very special" episode of Friends than it is to miss out on a national election.

    Considering all the coaxing, training, and brainwashing that they have given us, it is any wonder that we feel perfectly justified in getting out hands on that sweet, sweet intellectual property by any means?
    • I feel the need to refer everyone to George Carlin's cd "You are all diseased", and listen to the track about the number one industry in America.

      -kaxman
    • "It's not my fault I'm stealing it, since they made me want it"

      You are responsible for your actions. If you're proud of your them, defend them. If not, don't do them.
  • What happened to him, the teenager from Norway who was arrested by the Norwegian police, even before the 2600/MPAA case? Was he let go, or is there a trial pending, or was he acquitted/convicted?

  • Land of the free vs. the dark ages (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Unfortunately the Sklyarov case is not unique. American Renaissanse [amren.com] has an excellent essay covering dozens of cases in which Americans, Europeans and Canadians have been jailed, by the so-called democratic governments, for exercising their right to free speech.

    A must read for any person who cares about censorship.

    Return to the dark ages [amren.com]

  • Close your tags, please. It's rather annoying.
  • How come the Russian government hasn't been making a big stink about this? The complete irony of the situation has to be more than they can bear to keep quiet about.
  • I'm pretty sure this will get modded down as Flaimbait or whatever, but I don't care.

    It's stupid that people think they can break copyright laws and be set free by the open source fairy. That's not how it works. The law is there and it is there for you to respect. Copyright laws protect people who need to make a living. You have no right to steal their property or circumvent protection of intellectual property so you can get free stuff. No matter what you package it under, 99% of all so-called "free speech" trials against prominent open sources are about people who want free stuff.

    Here's an idea: If you want information/whatever to be free go make something and give it away for free. You can put a Public liscence on whatever you make, and give it away however your heart desires. You cannot give away things that are not your own intellectual property. You are damaging people who need to make a living and those of us who pay for the software.

    So in conclusion, if you want information to be free, go make some and make it free. Don't steal others'.
    • I'd say your post is more of an offtopic than flamebait. How is what you're saying related to Dmitry's case? He didn't break any copyrights, he didn't steal any IP. His company wrote a program that can possibly be used to make illegal copies, sure. Well, so can a copy machine, but I don't see the book publishers suing Xerox. I don't give a shit about "information wants to be free" mantra, but I know injustice when I see it.
    • I don't completely disagree with you. A person should not be allowed to hide behind Open Source in an attempt to shirk legal responsibility. However, IMO, the DeCSS case (don't know specifics about the other one, so I won't mention it) is one the Movie houses should lose.

      Bunner wrote and released the DeCSS code not to promote Movie piracy, but to allow people to use the movies they'd purchased legally to be viewed on Operating Systems other than WindowsTM. True, he did key the encryption keys out of another DVD player, and tnat may not have been right, but Bunner was in no way trying to get free stuff, he was just trying to use something he legally purchased in the mannner in which it was meant to be used.

      Remember a gun is not necessarily illegal, but it can be used in such a fashion. Just like Bunner's DeCSS code is not illegal, and his intended use is not, but how can Bunner be held responsible for what other people do? Foxxtrot713 -- Just my Opinion, don't like it, don't bug me

      • yup. The ironic thing about the copy-protection in DVDs is that you DON'T need to break it to make or use an illegal copy, but you DO need to break it to use the disc you actually paid for.

        I know people who have been pirating those things since they came out. Do a byte-by-byte copy and play it in any commercial DVD player...even getting an MPEG out of it can be done without touching the encryption. Takes a bit more work but it's certainly possible.

    • Re:My God respect intellectual property (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21, 2001 @09:28PM (#2202912)
      I'm pretty sure this will get modded down as Flaimbait or whatever, but I don't care.

      No, it will get modded down because it's entirely off-topic.



      It's stupid that people think they can break copyright laws and be set free by the open source fairy. That's not how it works.

      And apparently it's stupid for people to think they can follow the law which specifically allows for certain exceptions such as interoperability (DeCSS), and it's absolutely stupid for people to follow the law in their home country, then get picked up in another country where they followed the local law while they were there, but something legal they did while in their home country is illegal to do in the other country (Skylarov). You are right on one thing however: Following the law and expecting to not get jailed when you happen to annoy somebody with lots of money appears to not be the way things work.



      The law is there and it is there for you to respect.

      This one's too easy. Niggers to the back of the bus, the law is there for you to respect. I'm your Lord and I have conjugal rights to your wife, the law is there for you to respect. Your religion is against the law and the punishment is death, the law is there for you to respect. The fact is that some laws do not deserve respect, and these laws should be changed or stricken.



      Copyright laws protect people who need to make a living.

      No, copyright laws (at least in the U.S.) encourage the production of arts and science by establishing limited monopolies on their reproduction, whereas in a free market there would be less incentive to produce. Some artists and scientists can make a living off this limited monopoly, others cannot, others don't need it, but establishing a source of income is the effect, not the cause, of copyright, and the copyright is not a protection but a grant from the government.



      You have no right to steal their property or circumvent protection of intellectual property so you can get free stuff.

      True that I have no right to steal intellectual property, but offtopic as stealing IP has nothing to do with watching a DVD that I legally purchased on my FreeBSD-based DVD player, or printing a portion of an E-Book that I legally purchased to read on the bus to work/school. Circumventing protection is still legal in the U.S. as long as one does not tell anyone how to do it, and that is legal almost everywhere else.



      No matter what you package it under, 99% of all so-called "free speech" trials against prominent open sources are about people who want free stuff.

      First this is an exaggeration, as I don't think there have been enough trials for there to be 99%. Also, few of the computing free speech trials have been against open sourcers, and I can think of none against any open sourcer who was prominent before the trial started (save Randall Schwartz's case, which was less about free speech and more about office politics).


      Of the major such cases I can recall at the moment, the Communications Decency Act (later repealed) outlawed all obscenity on the Internet (meaning I wouldn't be able to tell you to fuck off for your stupid post without being fined and/or arrested); the Church of Scientology was suing people who had distributed its copyrighted documents after the Church had publicly and under oath denied certain things about its organization that the documents proved to be true, making the knowledge in the documents a matter of public interest. Whether the public interest outweighed the copyright is a matter of opinion, as courts in Scandinavia decided for the public interest while courts on the Continent decided for copyright; Skala and Janssen produced an essay on the form and quality of Cyber Patrol's product, along with tools that would allow an owner of Cyber Patrol to access the list of websites that are blocked, an index that by judicial precedent is not a copyrightable work. The judge in his decision against the two declared that they were trying to start a second Nazi Holocaust, so no danger of partiality here; Felton, a professor who had to sue to get a paper released without being sued himself; and DeCSS and Sklyarov; And in various ridiculous domain name cases, the undercurrent in the ones that draw outrage is that somebody registers a domain which is either a common word, their name, or a trademark of their company, and they get sued out of it by someone else with deep pockets who usually either already has a domain name and/or risks no confusion by the existance of the other name. Only one (Scientology) case of these involved a genuine infringement of copyright, and in that case the infringers who saw the work as having no value did not want free stuff, but wanted the information contained in the documents to be public knowledge because they saw a danger to the public in not having the knowledge.


      Mitnick, Napster and MP3.com don't count because they're not about free speech. Kevin Mitnick was a crook who was the first defendant in the history of the United States to be denied a bail hearing. In addition, the prosecuting attorneys heavily inflated the damages they claimed he had caused to ridiculous levels by claiming the development cost of producing programs he had copied as the cost incurred by his copying them, after others had already copied and distributed the same software. In the Napster case the company contributed to copyright infringement by advertising its service as a place to get free files. During trial, the RIAA alleged and the judge appeared to believe that Napster was itself making copies of the music files, while in reality files are copied from one user to another an Napster only keeps an index of filenames and users. Furthermore, Napster has shown good faith by removing users who illegally provide files that someone else has copyright for whenever they have been asked to do so. MP3.com was distributing copies of music without a license because they were too dumb to understand copyright laws, which is pretty open and shut.



      Here's an idea: If you want information/whatever to be free go make something and give it away for free. You can put a Public liscence on whatever you make, and give it away however your heart desires.

      Sounds like that open source movement you're deriding in the first paragraph.



      You cannot give away things that are not your own intellectual property. You are damaging people who need to make a living and those of us who pay for the software.

      Agreed, but offtopic.




      So in conclusion, if you want information to be free, go make some and make it free. Don't steal others'.


      That's what Johansen, LiViD, and their DeCSS supporters did. That's what Skala and Janssen did. That's what Felton did. Skylarov made his own information, but chose to sell it rather than give it away. All have been sued, threatened with suit, jailed, or threatened with jail time for doing what you recommend. That's why people are concerned for their rights, and that's why you are offtopic.

    • It's stupid that people think they can break copyright laws and be set free by the open source fairy. I'm pretty sure this will get modded down as Flaimbait...

      ... And you should. First off all the software on my machine is LEGIT and PURCHASED because I believe in copyright. Please calm down and rationalize the situation. If I buy a CD, I have every right to put the CD's contents in my Car's MP3 player. I'm not stealing! If the CD's contents are encrypted, I have the right to "circumvent the technological measures" to convert it to MP3 for my car. This is not stealing.

      The free speech aspect of this is the "circumvention measure" (downloadable executable, or otherwise) that allows me to listen to my CD in my car's MP3 player. The pirating of the CD itself it NOT free speech, and is not what we are fighting for.
    • Copyright laws protect people who need to make a living. You have no right to steal their property or circumvent protection of intellectual property so you can get free stuff. No matter what you package it under, 99% of all so-called "free speech" trials against prominent open sources are about people who want free stuff.

      There are a lot of bad assumptions here (e.g., that fair use is stealing), but let's ignore that and suppose we live in the RIAA's fair use-less fantasy world, where copyrights are absolute, and individuals can do only as the RIAA company wishes with its "property".

      Now, how do I refuse delivery? That is, how do I avoid being exposed to copyrighted material that I have no wish to buy? Everywhere I go, in restaurants, movie theaters, elevators, on telephone hold, etc., I am constantly being bombarded by such material. I don't want to hear it--how do I make it stop (without moving to a desert island)?

      But you say that that material is free (or otherwise paid for) and that I'm free to listen to it or not, as I please. No, it's not free to me--it fills my brain with (mostly inane) material that I can't even hum to myself without becoming a thief.

      Music, even bad music (and other art forms, etc.), can be addictive; if you hear something repeatedly, you can easily come to want to hear it whenever you choose. RIAA members impose upon us this way all the time. If an addictive drug like cocaine is illegal, it hardly seems fair to allow dealers to market it to us, does it? This is absurd.

      Copyright really is a bargain. The imposition on the public mentioned above is one of the things the RIAA gets in return for reasonable fair use. If they want to take fair use off the table, we ought to get a meaningful choice to not be exposed to their products in return.

      --Mike

  • The Anti-dmca Index (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21, 2001 @07:38PM (#2202735)
    The most recent version of this document can be found here:
    http://www.anti-dmca.org/dmca-index.html
    ________________________________________________ __ _________

    1. Amount Cornell University Library pays for subscription to "Journal of Applied Polymer Science": $12,495.00

    2. Amount charged to University Libraries for subscription to "Journal of Economic Studies": $13.40/page

    3. Number of people who find the $13.40 per page ironic: 3 out of 4

    4. Number of Project Gutenberg Etexts converted by voluteers: 3,551

    5. Current "Cost" per Etext based on 3,481 texts: $2.87 per text

    6. Number of Scientists worldwide boycotting Corporate Science Journals beginning September 2001: 26,000

    7. Number of college and research institutions "Declaring Independence" by publishing themselves: 200

    8. Number of days DMCA arrestee Dmitry Sklyarov spent in jail: 13

    9. Number of jails he spent them in: 4

    10. Amount charged to taxpayers for those 13 days: $4,000

    11. Window of time Microsoft and the American Association of Publishers (AAP) can engage in
    their cooperative Internet surveillance program: 24x7x365

    12. Number of AAP members who apparently support the Internet surveillance program: 250

    13. Number of "companies" which control the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA): 4

    14. Number of Executive Directors who appear to control the DVD Copy Control Association: 1

    15. Amount one company charges for eBook encryption security: $3,000

    16. Number of letters one must rotate the alphabet to decrypt that book: 13 (ROT-13)

    17. Amount recovered in recent "software raid" conducted by BSA.org against Minneapolis Company: $260,000

    18. Number of disgruntled employees who may report you to the BSA resulting in a "software raid.": 1

    19. Number of Irish software companies currently being sued by BSA.org: 7

    20. Companies BSA represents in those cases: Adobe, Autodesk, Macromedia, Microsoft and Symantec

    21. Number of cities included in July 2001 BSA "Truce" Campaign: 5

    22. Number of states which experienced Raids conducted by FBI on July 24 commended by BSA: 9

    23. Number of proported jobs lost from software piracy in study conducted by BSA.org: 109,000

    24. Amount an eBook customer may be fined for a backup not permited by the Publisher: $250,000

    25. Amount of time that customer might spend in jail: 5 years

    26. Number of restrictions placed on "Alice in Wonderland" (public domain) eBook: 5

    27. Maximum penalty for reading "Alice in Wonderland" aloud (possible DMCA violation): 5 years jail

    28. Maximum penalty for having a "pirate" copy of "Planet of the Apes": 10 years jail/$2M fine

    29. Average sentence for commiting Rape: 5 years

    ________________________________________________ __ _______________________________

    Information provided by anti-dmca.org
    ________________________________________________ __ _______________________________

    Please feel free to email, post, print, etc. this information.

    Additions, contributions and comments are welcome here:
    http://www.anti-dmca.org/dmca-index.html

    This index actually contains a scrambled (stenanographically hidden) version of
    Britney Spear's new single. However, we can't find the key so we're not quite
    sure it's there either.

    Harper's Interactive Index
    http://harpers.org/harpers-index/

    ________________________________________________ __ ________________________________

    Sources

    1. http://www.englib.cornell.edu/displays/stickershoc k/car.htm
    http://www.math.berkeley.edu/~kirby/journals.html# App1
    2. http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/jppage.htm
    3. Quick and simple poll
    4. http://promo.net/pg/nl/0105.html
    5. http://promo.net/pg/nl/0105.html
    6. http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/
    http://www.genomeweb.com/articles/view-article.asp ?Article=200172219199
    7. http://www.arl.org/sparc/DI/
    http://www.createchange.org/
    8. http://www.fresklyarov.org
    9. http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/08/10/12241.htm l
    10. Some multiplication
    11. http://www.microsoft.com/ebooks/das/antipiracy.asp
    12. http://www.microsoft.com/ebooks/das/antipiracy.asp
    13. http://www.lemuria.org/decss/hal2001.html
    14. http://www.lemuria.org/decss/hal2001.html
    15. http://www.download.ru/defcon.ppt
    16. http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/rot13/
    17. http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases//2001-08 -06.680.phtml
    18. http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011 ,2799089,00.html
    19. http://www.bsa.org/ireland/press/newsreleases//200 1-08-02.682.phtml
    20. http://www.bsa.org/ireland/press/newsreleases//200 1-08-02.682.phtml
    21. http://www.bsatruce.com/us/indexjuly2001.phtml
    22. http://new.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases//2001-07 -25.678.phtml
    23. http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/epub/faqs.asp
    24. http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/epub/faqs.asp
    25. http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/epub/faqs.asp
    26. http://www.pigdogs.org/art/adobe.html
    27. http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/dvd-discuss -faq.html#ss2.4.6
    28. http://www.politechbot.com/p-02293.html
    29. http://www.sharon-herald.com/localnews/recentnews/ 0005/ln050400h.html
    ________________________________________________ __ ___________________________________

    Disclaimer: By reading, viewing or disseminating this information you
    agree to hold the creators harmless.

    This information is protected by the US Constitution. All other contracts
    are null and void.

    License: You may do anything you want with this information as long as
    it is reproduced in it's entirety.
    ________________________________________________ __ ___________________________________

  • Joseph M. Burton concentrates his practice in complex civil, criminal and appellate litigation. His practice includes trade secret, trademark and patent litigation with an emphasis in cybercrime and cybersecurity matters.

    Mr. Burton is a former Assistant United States Attorney and chief of the Silicon Valley Office for the Northern District of California, where he brought several pioneering high technology prosecutions. He is a member of the White Collar Crime and Complex Crimes committees of the Section of Litigation of the American Bar Assocation and former chair of the Computer Crime Subcommittee. Mr. Burton is also a member of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Judiciary Committee, the Federal Bar Association and the Charles Houston Bar Association.

    Admitted to practice in California and the District of Columbia, Mr. Burton is a former lawyer delegate to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conferece. He is a 1973 graduate of Northeastern University and a graduate of the University of Dayton.

    Well, this attorney sounds like he knows what he is doing. Best of luck to him. I hope he kicks ass.

  • On Thursday, in San Jose, CA, free speech supporters can enjoy a double-header in Federal and State courts.

    Free Speech Supporters... Well its nice to know a few people belive in the bill of rights. Shoundn't everyone who lives in this country be a free speech supporter? If you dont support free speech, then why the hell are you here? You really should move to China. Anyway... I just feel bad when i see people rights being violated by major corperations, or even the government. I mean people died for free speech. And we sit here talking about it like its a huge political issue. Its a basic human right granted to americans by the constituion. And when it is taken away (by the government or others) its wrong.

  • News for nerds... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2001 @09:24PM (#2202903) Journal
    From the findings of fact on Bunner:


    Andrew Bunner first became aware of DeCSS on October 26, 1999 through a
    discussion on the news website slashdot.org.


    So someone learned something from this site!

  • In the latest issue of TIME magazine (cover story is the stem cell guy) Skylarov's jailing got 2 pages of press. There was a big photo of protestors, and the head of the EFF sounded quite reasonable and cogent. It was a decent article IMHO but failed, of course, to point out that TIME's parent company has a vested interest in the continued existence of the DMCA regarding DVDs. It's not online. It basically wasn't bullshit, which is good, but to me it focused more on Skylarov as The Russian than the problems of the DMCA.
  • "Bunner does not dispute that the DVD CCA is mad."

    and neither does this other defendant in the case. I'd even phrase it differently, maybe "insane".

    also take note of the organizational structure of DVD CCA [lemuria.org]. we haven't seen the last of Mr. Hoy yet. I'm fairly certain he'll be spending more time in court as his other systems get broken.

  • I'm rooting for Lex Luthor.


    The sooner California slides into the sea, the better...


    Rich

  • Copyright is an abstract concept, not a technology that one can circumvent with a device any more than you could circumvent time by resetting your wrist watch.

    But alas, the power-hungry morons pushing the DMCA to its limits probably overdosed on LSD and Star Trek in the sixties so they wouldn't know this.

  • Plea bargan for Dmitry? Maybe according to AP.

    [yahoo.com]
    AP Article.

Slashdot Top Deals

Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.

Close