Tennessee about to make Routers Illegal:
Tenneesee Digital Freedom
What is SB213/HB457 and SB3101?
SB213/HB457 was the Tennessee version of the "Super-DMCA" bill, which was proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly in the 2003 with the backing of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Versions of the bill had already been past in eight states, disguised as a simple update of existing cable theft legislation. In truth, this legislation has negatively impacted citizens' freedom of speech, their access to secure communications, and their use of many networking technologies. It gives Internet service providers (ISP's) unprecedented control over what types of devices and software citizens can use while connected to the Internet
Why should it matter to me?
Do you have more than one computer? Do you use Linux? Do you use any kind of Internet security hardware or software (called a "firewall"), or does your company use networking equipment to share Internet access using network address translation (NAT), or allow employees to connect from home using a virtual private network (VPN)? Do you cryptographically sign or encrypt your email? SDMCA-based legislation threatens your access to all of these. And if you don't understand some of these terms, you may already be using these technologies and simply be unaware of it. That's unimportant, though, because you can still go to jail for it.
1-8-2004 Hand-Held Device for DVD Movies Raises Legal Issues
This is the worse Nitemare that the MPAA (Hollywood) Execs were hoping to stop getting produced by getting the State DMCA Laws passed since they weren't successful in getting the FBI Powers right away from Congress they sought. They want to stop the progress of man and technology. We have to tahnk the Philips Corporation for not caving to the Hollywood Execs. I've found it fascinating to see that the one Giant Company in Philips fighting against the other giant Companies.
Technology and Johanssen wins. Norway Programmer cleared of DVD charges again:
12-22-2003 Norwegian Freed in DVD Film Piracy Case
An Oslo appeal court cleared a 20-year-old Norwegian of DVD piracy charges on Monday, dismaying Hollywood studios who said it would spur hackers blamed for leeching billions of dollars from the movie industry worldwide.
OK TO COPY
The court also ruled that it was more reasonable to make a personal copy of a DVD than a book under copyright laws, for instance, because a scratch could make a DVD unusable.
Johansen's lawyer said he felt the ruling would give a green light to consumers to copy music compact discs as well as DVDs. "This ruling applies only in Norway, but the arguments used in this trial can also be used abroad,"
12-10-2003 UbiSoft Violates Consumer Rights, installs code on your Computer that forces the removal of other software
12-5-03 A member just PM'd me about a DMCA issue. I can't PM back so E-mail me at dmcowen@bellsouth.net
11-26-2003 FatWallet Sues Best Buy Over DMCA Threat
FatWallet, Inc. filed a lawsuit yesterday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking a declaration that these demands constitute an abuse of the DMCA and violate the First Amendment rights of both FatWallet and its users.
11-16-2003 Garage Gadget Wins Digital Copyright Case
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHICAGO - In a closely watched technology lawsuit, a federal judge has ruled that a garage-door opener designed as a replacement for a model made by a rival manufacturer does not violate the nation's digital copyright law.
"Consumers have a reasonable expectation that they can replace the original product with a competing universal product without violating federal law," Judge Rebecca M. Pallmeyer said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is one of the first cases that has actually looked at the language of authority" given to the manufacturer by the law to prevent consumers from using a so-called aftermarket product, she said.
"This was an attempt to expand the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to where it had never gone before,"
Attorneys said the other federal court major case being watched for clues as to the limits of the digital copyright law is an effort by Lexmark International Inc. of Lexington, Ky., to bar Static Control Components Inc. of Sanford, N.C., from selling computer chips that match remanufactured toner cartridges to Lexmark International printers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank Goodness, some sign of backlash in the Courts against this insanity.
11-4-2003 5pm EST - Breaking News from EFF:
FCC passes "Broadcast Flag". All hardware to censor data for illegal file sharing.
I don't have a link yet.
This puts control of all Electronic Hardware especialy Computers in the Control of Hollywood. All PC's must be equipped with the Censoring Chip Technology. Any equipment not in compliance is deemed illegal and must be destroyed. Anyone caught using such equipment faces Federal Felony charges.
11-1-2003 Librarian of Congress Fails Public Interest in Copyright Regulation
Ignores Fair Uses of DVDs and CDs
Washington, DC - The Librarian of Congress this week continued to disregard
consumers' rights and denied exemptions to copyright law related to consumers'
use of CDs and DVDs that they legally purchase.
EFF had urged the Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress to grant
exemptions to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) ban on
circumventing technological locks. These digital locks, known as "digital
rights management" (DRM) systems, limit how consumers can play and view their
CDs and DVDs.
"Consumers are the real losers in today's ruling, because the Librarian of
Congress is ignoring the rights of nearly everyone who has purchased CDs and
DVDs," said EFF Staff Attorney Gwen Hinze. "We're disappointed that the
Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress did not recognize the significant
impact that the DMCA is having on millions of consumers' ability to make
reasonable uses of digital media they've purchased."
The Copyright Office did grant exemptions for the following activities:
1. Decoding lists of Web pages or directories blocked by Internet filtering
software, also known as censorware. EFF Pioneer Award recipient Seth
Finkelstein was instrumental in lobbying for censorware exemptions to the DMCA
for each U.S. Copyright Office rulemaking period.
2. Circumventing obsolete digital rights management devices called dongles that
prevent access due to malfunction or damage. The Internet Archive requested
this exemption.
3. Accessing computer programs and video games distributed in obsolete formats.
The Internet Archive requested this exemption.
4. Accessing ebooks for which the publisher has disabled the read-aloud function
or the ability to use screen readers to render the text into a specialized
format, such as Braille for access by the blind. The American Foundation for
the Blind and five major library associations requested this exemption.
"Although the exemptions granted by the Librarian of Congress are important,
today's ruling just underscores the need for legislative reform of the DMCA to
restore the balance in U.S. Copyright law," said EFF Senior Intellectual
Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann.
For the full press release:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20031028_1201_pr.php>
Ruling of the Copyright Office:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/copyright_ruling.php>
Comments and testimony to the Copyright Office:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/copyrightoffice/>
EFF report: "Unintended Consequences: Five Years under the DMCA":
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php>
10-29-2003 Copyright officials rule against Lexmark
The United States Copyright Office has ruled in favour of Static Control Components, of Sanford, N.C., saying that its microchips do not contravene the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The ruling says that section 1201 of the DMCA allows aftermarket companies to develop software for the purpose of remanufacturing toner cartridges and printers.
SCC argued that Lexmark was trying to shield itself from competition by installing a chip on its toner cartridges to make it difficult for third-party manufacturers to make generic cartridges.
The decision says that SCC is entitled to sell replacement chips for use in used Lexmark toner cartridges.
Lexmark filed its suit against SCC in December, 2002, saying the DMCA shields itself from competition from the remanufacturing industry.
Lexmark filed its suit against SCC in December, 2002, saying the DMCA shields itself from competition from the remanufacturing industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm shocked and glad to see someone in Govt has grown a brain.
U.S. DMCA to go global in 2005, gets a new Name FTAA
File sharers would be jailed under FTAA Treaty
Internet music swapping will be a felony throughout the Western Hemisphere in 2005.
"The draft intellectual property rights chapter in the FTAA Agreement vastly expands criminal procedures and penalties against intellectual property infringements..."One clause would require countries to send non-commercial infringers such as Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharers to prison. It is estimated that 60 million Americans use file-sharing software in the US alone.
The proposed agreement forbids consumers from bypassing technical restrictions on their own CDs, DVDs and other property, similar to the odious US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
"Mislabeled as a 'free trade' agreement, the FTAA Agreement would actually make it illegal to bypass trade barriers such as DVD region code restrictions and it would enable price discrimination against consumers in the Americas.
Another clause would require all countries to amend their copyright laws to extend copyright's term to at least 70 years after the life of the author, essentially forcing the new US standard on all other 33 countries in the hemisphere.
"The FTAA Treaty's IP chapter reads like a 'wish list' for RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft lobbyists," says IP Justice executive director Robin Gross.
FTAA Treaty negotiators will meet in Miami from November 16-21, 2003. Debate over the text of the FTAA Treaty will conclude by January 2005 and the treaty is due to take effect by December 2005.
10-10-2003 In an abrupt reversal, SunnComm Technologies said Friday that it would not sue a Princeton University graduate student
SunnComm's threats had drawn enormous attention in a short time, with some legal analysts saying a lawsuit would represent an egregious abuse of the DMCA...
Halderman could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday. "I expect I will be well-represented in the case of a lawsuit," the computer science student said Thursday. "If pressing the Shift key is a violation of the DMCA, then the law needs to be changed."
10-10-2003 Student faces 25 years in Federal prison and 10 million dollar fine for writing about "Shift key" CD bypass report.
"In addition, SunnComm believes that Halderman has violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by disclosing unpublished MediaMax management files placed on a user's computer after user approval is granted. Once the file is found and deleted according to the instructions given in the Princeton grad student's report, the MediaMax copy management system can be bypassed resulting in the copyright protected music being converted or misappropriated for potentially unauthorized and/or illegal use. SunnComm intends to refer this possible felony to authorities having jurisdiction over these matters because: 1. The author admits that he disabled the driver in order to make an unprotected copy of the disc's contents, and 2. SunnComm believes that the author's report was "disseminated in a manner which facilitates infringement" in violation of the DMCA or other applicable law. "
"SunnComm believes that by making erroneous assumptions in putting together his critical review of the MediaMax CD-3 technology, Halderman came to false conclusions concerning the robustness and efficacy of SunnComm's MediaMax technology. Based on several of these incorrect assumptions, Halderman and Princeton University have significantly damaged SunnComm's reputation and caused the market value of SunnComm to drop by more than $10 million. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneesee Digital Freedom
What is SB213/HB457 and SB3101?
SB213/HB457 was the Tennessee version of the "Super-DMCA" bill, which was proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly in the 2003 with the backing of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Versions of the bill had already been past in eight states, disguised as a simple update of existing cable theft legislation. In truth, this legislation has negatively impacted citizens' freedom of speech, their access to secure communications, and their use of many networking technologies. It gives Internet service providers (ISP's) unprecedented control over what types of devices and software citizens can use while connected to the Internet
Why should it matter to me?
Do you have more than one computer? Do you use Linux? Do you use any kind of Internet security hardware or software (called a "firewall"), or does your company use networking equipment to share Internet access using network address translation (NAT), or allow employees to connect from home using a virtual private network (VPN)? Do you cryptographically sign or encrypt your email? SDMCA-based legislation threatens your access to all of these. And if you don't understand some of these terms, you may already be using these technologies and simply be unaware of it. That's unimportant, though, because you can still go to jail for it.
1-8-2004 Hand-Held Device for DVD Movies Raises Legal Issues
This is the worse Nitemare that the MPAA (Hollywood) Execs were hoping to stop getting produced by getting the State DMCA Laws passed since they weren't successful in getting the FBI Powers right away from Congress they sought. They want to stop the progress of man and technology. We have to tahnk the Philips Corporation for not caving to the Hollywood Execs. I've found it fascinating to see that the one Giant Company in Philips fighting against the other giant Companies.
Technology and Johanssen wins. Norway Programmer cleared of DVD charges again:
12-22-2003 Norwegian Freed in DVD Film Piracy Case
An Oslo appeal court cleared a 20-year-old Norwegian of DVD piracy charges on Monday, dismaying Hollywood studios who said it would spur hackers blamed for leeching billions of dollars from the movie industry worldwide.
OK TO COPY
The court also ruled that it was more reasonable to make a personal copy of a DVD than a book under copyright laws, for instance, because a scratch could make a DVD unusable.
Johansen's lawyer said he felt the ruling would give a green light to consumers to copy music compact discs as well as DVDs. "This ruling applies only in Norway, but the arguments used in this trial can also be used abroad,"
12-10-2003 UbiSoft Violates Consumer Rights, installs code on your Computer that forces the removal of other software
12-5-03 A member just PM'd me about a DMCA issue. I can't PM back so E-mail me at dmcowen@bellsouth.net
11-26-2003 FatWallet Sues Best Buy Over DMCA Threat
FatWallet, Inc. filed a lawsuit yesterday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking a declaration that these demands constitute an abuse of the DMCA and violate the First Amendment rights of both FatWallet and its users.
11-16-2003 Garage Gadget Wins Digital Copyright Case
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHICAGO - In a closely watched technology lawsuit, a federal judge has ruled that a garage-door opener designed as a replacement for a model made by a rival manufacturer does not violate the nation's digital copyright law.
"Consumers have a reasonable expectation that they can replace the original product with a competing universal product without violating federal law," Judge Rebecca M. Pallmeyer said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is one of the first cases that has actually looked at the language of authority" given to the manufacturer by the law to prevent consumers from using a so-called aftermarket product, she said.
"This was an attempt to expand the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to where it had never gone before,"
Attorneys said the other federal court major case being watched for clues as to the limits of the digital copyright law is an effort by Lexmark International Inc. of Lexington, Ky., to bar Static Control Components Inc. of Sanford, N.C., from selling computer chips that match remanufactured toner cartridges to Lexmark International printers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank Goodness, some sign of backlash in the Courts against this insanity.
11-4-2003 5pm EST - Breaking News from EFF:
FCC passes "Broadcast Flag". All hardware to censor data for illegal file sharing.
I don't have a link yet.
This puts control of all Electronic Hardware especialy Computers in the Control of Hollywood. All PC's must be equipped with the Censoring Chip Technology. Any equipment not in compliance is deemed illegal and must be destroyed. Anyone caught using such equipment faces Federal Felony charges.
11-1-2003 Librarian of Congress Fails Public Interest in Copyright Regulation
Ignores Fair Uses of DVDs and CDs
Washington, DC - The Librarian of Congress this week continued to disregard
consumers' rights and denied exemptions to copyright law related to consumers'
use of CDs and DVDs that they legally purchase.
EFF had urged the Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress to grant
exemptions to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) ban on
circumventing technological locks. These digital locks, known as "digital
rights management" (DRM) systems, limit how consumers can play and view their
CDs and DVDs.
"Consumers are the real losers in today's ruling, because the Librarian of
Congress is ignoring the rights of nearly everyone who has purchased CDs and
DVDs," said EFF Staff Attorney Gwen Hinze. "We're disappointed that the
Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress did not recognize the significant
impact that the DMCA is having on millions of consumers' ability to make
reasonable uses of digital media they've purchased."
The Copyright Office did grant exemptions for the following activities:
1. Decoding lists of Web pages or directories blocked by Internet filtering
software, also known as censorware. EFF Pioneer Award recipient Seth
Finkelstein was instrumental in lobbying for censorware exemptions to the DMCA
for each U.S. Copyright Office rulemaking period.
2. Circumventing obsolete digital rights management devices called dongles that
prevent access due to malfunction or damage. The Internet Archive requested
this exemption.
3. Accessing computer programs and video games distributed in obsolete formats.
The Internet Archive requested this exemption.
4. Accessing ebooks for which the publisher has disabled the read-aloud function
or the ability to use screen readers to render the text into a specialized
format, such as Braille for access by the blind. The American Foundation for
the Blind and five major library associations requested this exemption.
"Although the exemptions granted by the Librarian of Congress are important,
today's ruling just underscores the need for legislative reform of the DMCA to
restore the balance in U.S. Copyright law," said EFF Senior Intellectual
Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann.
For the full press release:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20031028_1201_pr.php>
Ruling of the Copyright Office:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/copyright_ruling.php>
Comments and testimony to the Copyright Office:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/copyrightoffice/>
EFF report: "Unintended Consequences: Five Years under the DMCA":
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php>
10-29-2003 Copyright officials rule against Lexmark
The United States Copyright Office has ruled in favour of Static Control Components, of Sanford, N.C., saying that its microchips do not contravene the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The ruling says that section 1201 of the DMCA allows aftermarket companies to develop software for the purpose of remanufacturing toner cartridges and printers.
SCC argued that Lexmark was trying to shield itself from competition by installing a chip on its toner cartridges to make it difficult for third-party manufacturers to make generic cartridges.
The decision says that SCC is entitled to sell replacement chips for use in used Lexmark toner cartridges.
Lexmark filed its suit against SCC in December, 2002, saying the DMCA shields itself from competition from the remanufacturing industry.
Lexmark filed its suit against SCC in December, 2002, saying the DMCA shields itself from competition from the remanufacturing industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm shocked and glad to see someone in Govt has grown a brain.
U.S. DMCA to go global in 2005, gets a new Name FTAA
File sharers would be jailed under FTAA Treaty
Internet music swapping will be a felony throughout the Western Hemisphere in 2005.
"The draft intellectual property rights chapter in the FTAA Agreement vastly expands criminal procedures and penalties against intellectual property infringements..."One clause would require countries to send non-commercial infringers such as Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharers to prison. It is estimated that 60 million Americans use file-sharing software in the US alone.
The proposed agreement forbids consumers from bypassing technical restrictions on their own CDs, DVDs and other property, similar to the odious US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
"Mislabeled as a 'free trade' agreement, the FTAA Agreement would actually make it illegal to bypass trade barriers such as DVD region code restrictions and it would enable price discrimination against consumers in the Americas.
Another clause would require all countries to amend their copyright laws to extend copyright's term to at least 70 years after the life of the author, essentially forcing the new US standard on all other 33 countries in the hemisphere.
"The FTAA Treaty's IP chapter reads like a 'wish list' for RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft lobbyists," says IP Justice executive director Robin Gross.
FTAA Treaty negotiators will meet in Miami from November 16-21, 2003. Debate over the text of the FTAA Treaty will conclude by January 2005 and the treaty is due to take effect by December 2005.
10-10-2003 In an abrupt reversal, SunnComm Technologies said Friday that it would not sue a Princeton University graduate student
SunnComm's threats had drawn enormous attention in a short time, with some legal analysts saying a lawsuit would represent an egregious abuse of the DMCA...
Halderman could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday. "I expect I will be well-represented in the case of a lawsuit," the computer science student said Thursday. "If pressing the Shift key is a violation of the DMCA, then the law needs to be changed."
10-10-2003 Student faces 25 years in Federal prison and 10 million dollar fine for writing about "Shift key" CD bypass report.
"In addition, SunnComm believes that Halderman has violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by disclosing unpublished MediaMax management files placed on a user's computer after user approval is granted. Once the file is found and deleted according to the instructions given in the Princeton grad student's report, the MediaMax copy management system can be bypassed resulting in the copyright protected music being converted or misappropriated for potentially unauthorized and/or illegal use. SunnComm intends to refer this possible felony to authorities having jurisdiction over these matters because: 1. The author admits that he disabled the driver in order to make an unprotected copy of the disc's contents, and 2. SunnComm believes that the author's report was "disseminated in a manner which facilitates infringement" in violation of the DMCA or other applicable law. "
"SunnComm believes that by making erroneous assumptions in putting together his critical review of the MediaMax CD-3 technology, Halderman came to false conclusions concerning the robustness and efficacy of SunnComm's MediaMax technology. Based on several of these incorrect assumptions, Halderman and Princeton University have significantly damaged SunnComm's reputation and caused the market value of SunnComm to drop by more than $10 million. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: jliechty
You seem to have these people figured out pretty well, hmm?
So this Student is facing anywhere from 5 to 25 years in Federal Prison as well as having to pay SunnComm 10 million dollars. Just Brilliant this DMCA, brilliant
The EFF, Declan and many others including me have been warning people about this for nearly 2 years now and it is getting to the point of Martial Law and a Penal Colony.
10-7-2003 Simple Flaw in CD-Copy Protection System?
A Princeton graduate student said on Monday that he has figured out a way to defeat new software intended to keep music CDs from being copied on a computer -- simply by pressing the Shift-key.
In a paper posted on his Web site late Monday, John Halderman said the MediaMax CD3 software developed by SunnComm Technologies Inc. (OTC BB:STEH.OB - news) could be defeated on computers running the Windows operating system by holding down the Shift key, disabling a Windows feature that automatically launches the encryption software on the disc.
Halderman said the protection could also be disabled by stopping the driver the CD installs when it is first inserted into a computer's drive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next News item will be that this guy is jailed under the DMCA unfortunately.
10-5-2003 Unintended Consequences: Five Years under the DMCA
EFF Report:
"Five years of experience with the ?anti-circumvention? provisions of the DMCA demonstrate that the statute reaches too far, chilling a wide variety of legitimate activities in ways Congress did not intend. As an increasing number of copyright works are wrapped in technological protection measures, it is likely that the DMCA?s anti-circumvention provisions will be applied in further unforeseen contexts, hindering the legitimate activities of innovators, researchers, the press, and the public at large."
9-24-2002 Studios Moving to Block Piracy of Films Online
Hilary Rosen former President of RIAA:
"Movie executives have to be aggressive in their business strategy right off the bat," Ms. Rosen said. "Frankly if they don't take that view given what has happened in the music business, they should all be fired."
9-23-2003 Jury convicts man in DMCA case
Florida man convicted of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in the first jury-trial conviction under the controversial law, according to a U.S. attorney's office.
The Los Angeles jury found 38-year-old Thomas Michael Whitehead guilty on Friday of selling hardware that could access DirecTV satellite broadcasts without paying for them.
With the six felony convictions, Whitehead faces up to 30 years in federal prison and fines of as much as $2.75 million. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 26, 2004.
The government's first attempt to win a jury conviction based on the law ended in the acquittal of ElcomSoft. The Russian company's employee Dmitri Sklyarov became a cause celebre among hackers after he was arrested. Sklyarov had described his company's software for decrypting Adobe's eBooks software to attendees of the DefCon security conference.
Legal analysts predicted that Whitehead's convictions would fail to elicit support comparable to that seen for Sklyarov.
"The fact is that many people believe the DMCA is overreaching in the copyright area," said Evan Cox, an attorney with Covington & Burling in San Francisco who specializes in copyright issues. "But hacking a DirecTV feed simply to avoid paying for it is not going to arouse the sympathy that you got for hacking an eBook reader that let you put it on a different machine, or making copies for personal use."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only question in this case;
Does the punishment fit the crime or will the punishment fit the crime since sentencing is not till early next year?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-12-2003 Tennessee Legislatures form Committee to work on passing State Version of DMCA Law.
New Action in TN. Anyone on the ground heard anything or know anyone
involved?
General Assembly renews consideration of cable theft legislation
by Alexei Smirnov (alexei@nashvillepost.com)
Thursday, 9/11/2003 -- A Tennessee General Assembly committee charged
with
studying theft of cable and broadband services met for initial
deliberations Wednesday.
The joint study committee was appointed at the end of legislature's
spring
session when the proposed cable theft bill did not pass a handful of
necessary hearings due to time constraints and opposition by a group of
local technology enthusiasts.
Backed by the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association, the bill
addresses modern technologies that did not exist when cable theft
statutes
were first adopted in the 1990s. While its backers say the bill would
help
prevent theft of cable and Internet services, the opponents, such as the
Tennessee Digital Freedom Network, say the bill's language is so vague
that
it could potentially target innocent technology users and restrict the
choices of devices consumers will be able to plug into telecom lines.
During the meeting Wednesday, Sen. Larry Trail (D-Murfreesboro) was
appointed chairman of the study committee and Rep. Gary Odom
(D-Nashville)
was named co-chairman.
The next meeting is slated for the beginning of October.
9-3-2003 French Woman wins Lawsuit against Copyprotected CD's that don't work in all Players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy protected CDs illegal in France? Not quite
A Nanterre court has ordered the music label to refund a woman who could not play her new Alain Souchon CD on her car CD player. Alternatively, EMI is to provide a full-working copy. The ruling applies to all people who have bought CDs which they cannot play on some CD players, computers and Walkmans.
But EMI was not forbidden by the court to sell copyright protected CDs per se, merely that it must not sell defective CDs. So it appears like it could be back to the drawing board for the anti-piracy measures it uses.
9-8-2003 Federal Court rejects Chamberlain's Garage Door Opener Company use of the DMCA to lock people out of their own garages
A federal district court in Chicago has rejected an effort by garage door opener vendor Chamberlain to use the DMCA to ban its competitor, Skylink, from selling replacement "clickers" for Chamberlain openers.
"The Court properly rejected Chamberlain's use of the DMCA (PDF) to lock people out of their own garages," said EFF Attorney Gwen Hinze. "If I buy a Chamberlain garage door opener, I have the authority to open my garage any way I please."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully this judgment clears the way to stop the Lexmark & Hewlett Packard Lawsuits using the DMCA to stop any other Manufacturers from making replacement Ink Cartridges.
And any other insane uses of the DMCA, it needs to be re-called now!@
Censorship of the Internet continues using the power of the DMCA.
Google Removes Links in Response to DMCA Complaint
"It's scary that the DMCA makes URLs a copyright violation. How long before libraries can't index books? Or own them?"
Kazaa Owner Complains of Copyright Infringement
8-29-2003 Using the DMCA SCO sues Linux Users $700 each!
and everyone though Microsoft was expensive!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Action Alert: Linux Users Unite to Stop SCO!
The SCO Group, Inc. recently announced that it plans to sue individual
Linux users if they refuse to pay the company a $700 licensing fee. This
is an effort designed by SCO to bolster its licensing claims against IBM
and Red Hat by beating up on people who can't afford a multimillion-dollar
defense. SCO hasn't proven that it has a right to collect this money at
all, so its attempt to hold end-users liable is a terrible misuse of the
legal system. Tell Congress that SCO's tactics are unacceptable!
Tell Congress to stop SCO:
Tell Congress to stop SCO
Become an EFF Member today:
<https://secure.eff.org>
8-12-2003 Computers automatically sending Cease &Desist letters
From discussion over at SlashDot:
Computers automatically sending C&D letters? (Score:5, Insightful)
by pclminion (145572) on Tuesday August 12, @12:42PM (#6676593)
How can the human element be totally removed from this? There's a computer somewhere deciding whether or not it sees "infringing" material and sends out legal harrassment letters without any human intervention whatsoever? And people are not absolutely outraged by this?
What's next, automatic indictment by computer? "Sorry sir, the computer has ascertained that there is a 94% probability that you murdered your wife. The trial begins Wednesday."
----------------------------------------------------------
Companies are going Hog wild with C & D's such as Fox going after Frankel today for using the words "Fair and Balanced" on a book cover, Fox lays claim to the words as they TradeMarked them, the RIAA is now up and over 2,000 Subpeona's issued.
8-6-2003 The Copyright Cage
Excellent writing by Professor Zittrain at Harvard.
"Bars can't have TVs bigger than 55 inches. Teddy bears can't include tape decks. Girl Scouts who sing "Puff, the Magic Dragon" owe royalties. Copyright law needs to change. "
I didn't know that just about every Sports Bar in the United States are operating illegally and must be shut down under the DMCA because the TV's are too large and they have too many speakers.
7-17-2003
DirecTV dragnet snares innocent techies
DirectTV has sued 9,000 people without probable cause using the Federal DMCA Law and this is even before the new State version of the DMCA kicks in many States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Mods and those that run the AT Website for creating this Politics and News Forum.
With so many Issues especially related to Computers, technology and the Internet now coming up on the mainstream public more and more everyday this is a great area to discuss the current issues. If people don't know and don't talk then the Politicians and Lawyers have absolute free running of doing whatever they want and then everyone would moan and groan later when it's too late, the horse has already left the barn.
In todays's News in Georgia a meeting was held to discuss Issues for the new State Super DMCA Act or Law they are trying to pass. The Committee members called it a Piracy Law. There were 8 Speakers bringing up Issues about the Bill with no one standing up for the Bill. However there was a table of people that did not speak and were not part of the Legislative Committee. It is speculated that these people were representatives for the Special Interests such as the MPAA that had a Legal Firm in Pennyslyvania draw up the original wording that all of the States are using as a Template for these State Super DMCA laws.
Here is the Draft made by a Pennyslvania Law Firm for the MPAA to push all 50 States into signing into Law. A couple of States such as Illinois and Michigan signed them in without making any additions or changes:
DRAFT MODEL
COMMUNICATIONS
SECURITY
LEGISLATION
____________________________
BROADBAND & INTERNET
SECURITY TASK FORCE
(FINAL Revised 4/7/03)
Unlawful Communication and Access Devices
(a) Offense defined.??Any person commits an offense if he knowingly and with the intent to defraud a communication service provider:
(1) possesses, uses, manufactures, develops, assembles, distributes, transfers, imports into this state, licenses, leases, sells or offers, promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any communication device:
(i) for the commission of a theft of a communication service or to receive, intercept, disrupt, transmit, re-transmit, decrypt, acquire or facilitate the receipt, interception, disruption, transmission, re-transmission, decryption or acquisition of any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider, as stated in a contract or otherwise; or
(ii) to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication, provided that such concealment is for the purpose of committing a violation of subparagraph (i) above; or
(2) modifies, alters, programs or reprograms a communication device for the purposes described in subparagraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) above; or
(3) possesses, uses, manufactures, develops, assembles, distributes, imports into this state, licenses, transfers, leases, sells, offers, promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any unlawful access device or
(4) possesses, uses, prepares, distributes, sells, gives, transfers or offers, promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any:
(i) plans or instructions for making, or assembling or developing any communication or unlawful access device, under circumstances evidencing an intent to use or employ such communication or unlawful access device, or to allow the same to be used or employed, for a purpose prohibited by this section, or knowing or having reason to believe that the same is intended to be so used, or that the aforesaid plans or instructions are intended to be used for manufacturing or assembling such communication or unlawful access device for a purpose prohibited by this section; or
(ii) material, including hardware, cables, tools, data, computer software or other information or equipment, knowing that the purchaser or a third person intends to use the material in the manufacture, assembly or development of a communication device for a purpose prohibited by this section, or for use in the manufacture, assembly or development of an unlawful access device; and
(5) Assist others in committing any of the acts prohibited by this section.
(b) Criminal Penalties.--
(1) Except for violations of this section as provided for in paragraph (2) or (3), an offense under this section is a misdemeanor.
(2) An offense under this section is a felony if:
(i) the defendant has been convicted previously under this section or convicted of any similar crime in this or any Federal or other state jurisdiction; or
(ii) the violation of this section involves at least 10, but not more than 50, communication or access devices.
(3) An offense under this section is a felony if:
(i) the defendant has been convicted previously on two or more occasions for offenses under this section or for any similar crime in this or any Federal or other state jurisdiction; or
(ii) the violation of this section involves more than 50 communication or unlawful access devices.
(4) For purposes of grading an offense based upon a prior conviction under this section or for any similar crime pursuant to subparagraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(3)(i), a prior conviction shall consist of convictions upon separate indictments or criminal complaints for offenses under this section or any similar crime in this or any Federal or other state jurisdiction.
(5) As provided for in subparagraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(3)(i), in grading an offense under this section based upon a prior conviction, the term "any similar crime" shall include, but not be limited to, offenses involving theft of service or fraud, including violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Public Law 98?549, 98 Stat. 2779).
(6) Separate offenses.??For purposes of all criminal penalties or fines established for violations of this section, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each communication or unlawful access device shall be deemed a separate offense. Each day a person is in violation of this section also constitutes a separate offense.
(7) Fines.??For purposes of imposing fines upon conviction of a defendant for an offense under this section, all fines shall be imposed as authorized by law for each day a person is in violation of this section and for each communication or unlawful access device involved in the violation.
(8) Restitution. ??The court shall, in addition to any other sentence authorized by law, sentence a person convicted of violating this section to make restitution as authorized by law.
(9) Forfeiture of communication or unlawful access devices.??Upon conviction of a defendant under this section, the court may, in addition to any other sentence authorized by law, direct that the defendant forfeit any communication or unlawful access devices in the defendant's possession or control which were involved in the violation for which the defendant was convicted.
(c) Venue.??An offense or violation under subsection (a) may be deemed to have been committed at either place where the defendant manufactures, develops or assembles an communication or unlawful access device or assists others in doing so, or the places where the communication or unlawful access device is sold or delivered to a purchaser or recipient. It shall be no defense to a violation of subsection (a) that some of the acts constituting the violation occurred outside of this [State or Commonwealth].
(d) Civil actions. ??
(1) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. "Any person aggrieved" shall include any communication service provider.
(2) The court may:
(i) award declaratory relief and other equitable remedies, including preliminary and final injunctions to prevent or restrain violations of this section, without requiring proof that the plaintiff has suffered, or will suffer, actual damages, irreparable harm or lacks an adequate remedy at law;
(ii) at any time while an action is pending, order the impounding, on such terms as it deems reasonable, of any communication or unlawful access device that is in the custody or control of the violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was involved in the alleged violation of this section;
(iii) award damages as described in subsection (3) below;
(iv) in its discretion, award reasonable attorney fees and costs, including, but not limited to, costs for investigation, testing and expert witness fees, to an aggrieved party who prevails; and
(v) as part of a final judgment or decree finding a violation of this section, order the remedial modification or destruction of any communication or unlawful access device, or any other devices or equipment involved in the violation, that is in the custody or control of the violator, or has been impounded under subparagraph (ii) above.
(3) Types of damages recoverable. ??Damages awarded by a court under this section shall be computed as either of the following:
(i) Upon his election of such damages at any time before final judgment is entered, the complaining party may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the violation of this section and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. Actual damages include the retail value of any communication services illegally available to those persons to whom the violator directly or indirectly provided or distributed any communication or unlawful access devices. In proving actual damages, the complaining party shall be required to prove only that the violator manufactured, distributed or sold any communication or unlawful access devices, but shall not be required to prove that those devices were actually used in violation of this section. In determining the violator's profits, the complaining party shall be required to prove only the violator's gross revenue, and the violator shall be required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation; or
(ii) Upon election by the complaining party at any time before final judgment is entered, that party may recover in lieu of actual damages an award of statutory damages of between $1,500 to $10,000 for each communication or unlawful access device involved in the action, with the amount of statutory damages to be determined by the court as the court considers just.
(4) In any case where the court finds that any of the violations of this section were committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the total award of any damages amended under subparagraphs (i) and (ii) above, by an amount of not more than $50,000 for each communication or unlawful access device involved in the action and for each day the defendant was in violation of this section.
(e) Definitions.?As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Manufacture, assembly or development of a communication device." To make, produce, develop or assemble a communication device, or to knowingly assist others in those activities.
(2) "Communication device."
(i) Any type of electronic mechanism, transmission lines or connections and appurtenances thereto, instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology or software which is capable of intercepting, transmitting, re-transmitting, acquiring, decrypting or receiving any communication service; and
(ii) Any component thereof, including any electronic serial number, mobile identification number, personal identification number, computer circuit, splitter, connectors, switches, transmission hardware, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, electronic mechanism or any component, accessory or part of any communication device which is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, re-transmission, decryption, acquisition or reception of any communication service;
(3) "Communication service." Any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate the lawful origination, transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, data, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by telephone, including cellular or other wireless telephones, wire, wireless, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems, networks or facilities; and any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation by any radio, telephone, fiber optic, photo-optical, electromagnetic, photoelectric, cable television, satellite, microwave, data transmission, wireless or Internet-based distribution system, network or facility, including, but not limited to, any and all electronic, data, video, audio, Internet access, telephonic, microwave and radio communications, transmissions, signals and services, and any such communications, transmissions, signals and services lawfully provided directly or indirectly by or through any of the aforementioned systems, networks or facilities.
(4) "Communication service provider." (i) Any person or entity providing a communication service, whether directly or indirectly as a reseller, including, but not limited to, a cellular, paging or other wireless communications company or other person or entity which, for a fee, supplies the facility , cell site, mobile telephone switching office or other equipment or communication service; (ii) any person or entity owning or operating any fiber optic, photo-optical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, cable television, satellite, Internet-based, telephone, wireless, microwave, data transmission or radio distribution system, network or facility; and (iii) any person or entity providing any communication service directly or indirectly by or through any such distribution systems, networks or facilities.
(5) "Unlawful access device." Any type of instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology or software which is primarily designed, developed, assembled, manufactured, sold, distributed, possessed, used or offered, promoted or advertised, for the purpose of defeating or circumventing any effective technology, device or software, or any component or part thereof, used by the provider, owner or licensee of any communication service or of any data, audio or video programs or transmissions, to protect any such communication, data, audio or video services, programs or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission or re-transmission.
(6) "Manufacture, assembly or development of an unlawful access device." To make, develop, produce or assemble an unlawful access device or modify, alter, program or reprogram any instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology or software for the purpose of defeating or circumventing any effective technology, device or software used by the provider, owner or licensee of a communication service, or of any data, audio or video programs or transmissions, to protect any such communication, data, audio or video services, programs or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, interception, acquisition, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission or re-transmission, or to knowingly assist others in those activities.
(7) "Multipurpose Device" means any communication device that is capable of more than one function, and includes any component thereof.
(f) A person that manufactures, produces, assembles, designs, sells, distributes, licenses or develops a multipurpose device shall not be in violation of this section unless that person acts knowingly and with an intent to defraud a communication service provider and the multipurpose device: (1) is manufactured, developed, assembled, produced, designed, distributed, sold or licensed for the primary purpose of committing a violation of this section; or (2) has only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than as a unlawful access device or for the commission of any other violation of this section; or (3) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person?s knowledge for use as an unlawful access device or for the purpose of committing any other violation of this section.
(g) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts, software code, and/or components for, a communication device provide for a response to any particular technology, device or software, or any component or part thereof, used by the provider, owner or licensee of any communication service or of any data, audio or video programs or transmissions, to protect any such communication, data, audio or video service, programs or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission or re-transmission.
(h) This section shall not impose any criminal or civil liability upon any:
(1) state or local law enforcement agency;
(2) state or local government authority, municipality or agency; and
(3) communication service provider,
lawfully acting in their capacity as such.
Edit:6-26-2003
States as they pass this:
Arkansas 4-16-2003
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Michigan 1-10-2003
Illinois 2-17-2003
Florida 6-25-2003
States that have Vetoed the Bill passed by it's Legislature:
Colorado 5-14-2003
States working on passing it now:
Georgia
Massachusetts
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Facebook
Twitter