DMCA latest News:2-5-04 Tenneesee about to make Routers Illegal

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,954
577
126
You are very good at what they call Spinning or a Spinster? Interesting how you only focused on the Felony portion of the wording in the case of this bill and not the DMCA portion where if you do not have permission from the provider for using hardware or software you are in violation. That is where all of the arguments above come into being.
Dumb ass, I addressed three specific claims of Costner; 1) the criminalization of TIVO devices (which it doesn't do), 2) making it a felony to add another cable receiver without authorization (which it doesn't do), and 3) making it a felony to use your own DSL modem (which it doesn't do).

It also happens to be the FIRST THREE assertions made by Costner in the order made by Costner. I just started at the top and worked down until I felt I had sufficiently proven that Costner either is so profoundly stupid that he can't read a simple bill and comprehend it or he is an unmitigated liar. Either one, I'll let him decide which suits him best, but neither is very flattering and certainly not the kind of reputation I would be relying upon as a "source" of my information.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,954
577
126
I started scanning through HB2121, but haven't had time to read all of it, or the other bills, but this particular part jumped out at me as ripe for being misinterpreted by ISPs who want people to pay an arm and several legs to have more than one computer hooked up to their connection (when an inexpensive router would normally legally suffice):
It would help if you referenced the appropriate bill. SB1116 has been passed by the Senate and sent to the House for consideration (engrossed). HB2121 has only made it out of committee but not to the floor of the House.

As it looks, SB1116 will be the "base" bill considered by the House, not HB2121. Any differences between SB1116 and HB2121 will have to be reconciled to SB1116, not to HB2121. As of yet, there are no amendments to HB2121 proposed or adopted so it would suggest HB2121 is for all intents and purposes dead.

The sections you're citing were in the "introduced" version of SB1116 but not the version sent to the House. So if you will, stick with the Bill that is the furthest along in the legislative process and most likely to be passed - SB1116. It helps to be on the same 'page', in a manner of speaking.

Edit: I am not as familiar with legislative procedure in Texas as I am with procedure in Michigan, nor do I have any contacts with legislative staffers in Texas as I do in Michigan. So my analysis of the procedural process above is only an educated best guess. I believe its correct, but I can't be certain.
 

magma

Member
Jun 6, 2003
26
0
0
God I love those pro-DMCA nuts; especially when they try to make freedom sound like a bad thing.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: smegma
God I love those pro-DMCA nuts; especially when they try to make freedom sound like a bad thing.

Dude..................great screen name. :)
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: smegma
God I love those pro-DMCA nuts; especially when they try to make freedom sound like a bad thing.
Or the ones that try to make it sound like you're not loosing any freedom at all (well, only freedom to do the things that the RIAA deems inappropriate and/or evil). The "if you're not for us, you're against us" rhetoric is also quite entertaining; if you don't agree with and support every purpose of the RIAA, they deem you a vile pirate (whether or not you've ever infringed upon their copyrights). :disgust:
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Dude..................great screen name. :)
LOL, yea. :cool:
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,954
577
126
Something I find very perplexing, maybe Dave and Company can help me out with a few questions....

What do the networking hardware companies have to say on this legislation? You know, these billion dollar companies whose entire product lines would be rendered "illegal" by these bills if they become law? DLink, Cisco, NetGear, Linksys, Siemens, Lucent, et al. Any of them have an on-going campaign to raise public awareness of these proposals?

Or is it just that multi-million and multi-billion dollar companies can't afford good legal counsel with enough expertise to understand the ramifications of these proposals as well as some one-man anti-RIAA website? Could be.

What do the networking standards organizations have to say on this legislation? You know, like IEEE and UTI and all those groups? Have they even raised a 'blip' of concern about any law in particular, since it is certain their organizations will, if we are to believe the anti-RIAA zealots, be rendered criminal for developing and promoting standards for these would-be illegal devices and systems?

What do multi-million dollar companies who sell these products have to say on this legislation? You know, $100+ million companies like Tiger Direct, Computer Discount Warehouse, Best Buy, and the like, who stand to lose tens of millions in revenues if these products are made 'illegal'?

What is 'buying' their silence, Dave? You must have rationalized all this to yourself some how, I'd like to know more about it.

There are only a few possibilities which might explain their silence in any logical manner (in no particular order):

1. These companies, collectively worth many billions, can't afford legal counsel and advisors who are as qualified to understand the ramifications of these proposals quite as well as attorneys for George's Electronic Freedom Fighter website which has in its 'warchest' a whopping annual budget of $200 and can buy a lot of top-notch legal analysis for that plus a Krispy Kreme coupon?

2. The legal counsel and advisors of all these companies are part of the Great RIAA Conspiracy. They've been paid-off by RIAA, all of them. Every last one.

3. The companies themselves are being paid-off by RIAA to say and do nothing while RIAA ruins their markets by criminalizing their products. Every last one.

Which of these have you saw fit to believe? Am I missing other Perfectly Logical Explanations?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Something I find very perplexing, maybe Dave and Company can help me out with a few questions....

What do the networking hardware companies have to say on this legislation? You know, these billion dollar companies whose entire product lines would be rendered "illegal" by these bills if they become law? DLink, Cisco, NetGear, Linksys, Siemens, Lucent, et al. Any of them have an on-going campaign to raise public awareness of these proposals?

Or is it just that multi-million and multi-billion dollar companies can't afford good legal counsel with enough expertise to understand the ramifications of these proposals as well as some one-man anti-RIAA website? Could be.

What do the networking standards organizations have to say on this legislation? You know, like IEEE and UTI and all those groups? Have they even raised a 'blip' of concern about any law in particular, since it is certain their organizations will, if we are to believe the anti-RIAA zealots, be rendered criminal for developing and promoting standards for these would-be illegal devices and systems?

What do multi-million dollar companies who sell these products have to say on this legislation? You know, $100+ million companies like Tiger Direct, Computer Discount Warehouse, Best Buy, and the like, who stand to lose tens of millions in revenues if these products are made 'illegal'?

What is 'buying' their silence, Dave? You must have rationalized all this to yourself some how, I'd like to know more about it.

There are only a few possibilities which might explain their silence in any logical manner (in no particular order):

1. These companies, collectively worth many billions, can't afford legal counsel and advisors who are as qualified to understand the ramifications of these proposals quite as well as attorneys for George's Electronic Freedom Fighter website which has in its 'warchest' a whopping annual budget of $200 and can buy a lot of top-notch legal analysis for that plus a Krispy Kreme coupon?

2. The legal counsel and advisors of all these companies are part of the Great RIAA Conspiracy. They've been paid-off by RIAA, all of them. Every last one.

3. The companies themselves are being paid-off by RIAA to say and do nothing while RIAA ruins their markets by criminalizing their products. Every last one.

Which of these have you saw fit to believe? Am I missing other Perfectly Logical Explanations?

You realize that if all routers and such had to have "special" DMCA and other hardware "protections" built in - that ALL networking hardware companies stand to gain increased revenue right? How many modems, routers, and such are in the market place? How many would have to be replaced to conform to new laws? Hint: almost ALL ;)
These companies could care less - they'll sell hardware either way, if not sell more(shortterm) from new laws;)

CkG
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,954
577
126
You realize that if all routers and such had to have "special" DMCA and other hardware "protections" built in - that ALL networking hardware companies stand to gain increased revenue right? How many modems, routers, and such are in the market place? How many would have to be replaced to conform to new laws? Hint: almost ALL
These companies could care less - they'll sell hardware either way, if not sell more(shortterm) from new laws
Nooo, they're claiming these things will be "illegal".

VCRs without Macrovision circuits are still perfectly legal to own and sell. You just cannot manufacturer or import into the country any VCRs without Macrovision circuits. Those already here can stay (grandfathered).

I don't know about you but Macrovision certainly didn't take any of my freedoms away, but then I wasn't making copies of video cassettes, either.

Ah ha! I think we've found the motive for their objections!
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: tcsenter
You realize that if all routers and such had to have "special" DMCA and other hardware "protections" built in - that ALL networking hardware companies stand to gain increased revenue right? How many modems, routers, and such are in the market place? How many would have to be replaced to conform to new laws? Hint: almost ALL
These companies could care less - they'll sell hardware either way, if not sell more(shortterm) from new laws
Nooo, they're claiming these things will be "illegal".

VCRs without Macrovision circuits are still perfectly legal to own and sell. You just cannot manufacturer or import into the country any VCRs without Macrovision circuits. Those already here can stay (grandfathered).

I don't know about you but Macrovision certainly didn't take any of my freedoms away, but then I wasn't making copies of video cassettes, either.

Ah ha! I think we've found the motive for their objections!

CKG answered it correctly, directly and you still fail to heed, incredible.

Only the original equipment that has not been "sanitized" with the new snooping Technology would be illegal. Similar to Bills pushing for all guns without finger printing ID locks to be illegal. That would make original non - Technology based Guns "Illegal". But hey, they don't even need to do that when they are busy making it "Illegal" for citizens to even own a gun to begin with.



 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
VCRs without Macrovision circuits are still perfectly legal to own and sell. You just cannot manufacturer or import into the country any VCRs without Macrovision circuits. Those already here can stay (grandfathered).
Right, the same as will happen with the CBDTPA.
I don't know about you but Macrovision certainly didn't take any of my freedoms away, but then I wasn't making copies of video cassettes, either.
You conveniently forget about that thing called "fair use," just like all of the RIAA and MPAA execs do. Just because you don't want to utilize a certain freedom doesn't mean that it's ok for others to have it taken away from them.
Ah ha! I think we've found the motive for their objections!
Yes, everyone who wants the freedoms of fair use or privacy is a pirate. The RIAA has done a good job of indoctrinating you with their gospel.
rolleye.gif
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,954
577
126
You conveniently forget about that thing called "fair use," just like all of the RIAA and MPAA execs do. Just because you don't want to utilize a certain freedom doesn't mean that it's ok for others to have it taken away from them.
Fair use is a myth. The only fair use exemption permitted by copyright law/regulation applies only to software, data, system and network backups. The fair use exemption never applied to music or video tapes.

At least the law never recognized it. One might argue there was as a matter of practice some de facto fair use exemption since it was very common to do these things.
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
You conveniently forget about that thing called "fair use," just like all of the RIAA and MPAA execs do. Just because you don't want to utilize a certain freedom doesn't mean that it's ok for others to have it taken away from them.
Fair use is a myth. The only fair use exemption permitted by copyright law/regulation applies only to software, data, system and network backups. The fair use exemption never applied to music or video tapes.

At least the law never recognized it. One might argue there was as a matter of practice some de facto fair use exemption since it was very common to do these things.
Uh huh. Thanks for reminding me of Jack Valenti's warped, self-serving views on the topic of fair use.
rolleye.gif
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,954
577
126
Uh huh. Thanks for reminding me of Jack Valenti's warped, self-serving views on the topic of fair use.
The law is fairly clear, it always has been. You're free to scour Title 17 of the US Code for your non-existant 'fair use' exemption for personal backups of music or movies and post it here to prove your case, as I'm about to do:

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if-

(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and

(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.

(d) Definitions. For purposes of this section-

(1) the "maintenance" of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and

(2) the "repair" of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.

----------

Of course, I'm not taking into account all the other fair use exemptions such as academic or teaching purposes, public libraries, public archives, and others which do not apply to making copies of music or video for personal use.
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
What legal precedent has been established for copying digital media?

In 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Sys, Inc., upheld the personal use copying of digital musical recordings, explaining that it is a fair use to "make copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive." The unanimous court stated that this type of copying falls within the personal use right of consumers to make analog or digital copies of copyrighted works for private, non-commercial use.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jliechty
What legal precedent has been established for copying digital media?

In 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Sys, Inc., upheld the personal use copying of digital musical recordings, explaining that it is a fair use to "make copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive." The unanimous court stated that this type of copying falls within the personal use right of consumers to make analog or digital copies of copyrighted works for private, non-commercial use.

This was the win for the RIO Mp3 player, the RIAA attempt at outlawing MP3 players themselves.

 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jliechty
What legal precedent has been established for copying digital media?

In 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Sys, Inc., upheld the personal use copying of digital musical recordings, explaining that it is a fair use to "make copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive." The unanimous court stated that this type of copying falls within the personal use right of consumers to make analog or digital copies of copyrighted works for private, non-commercial use.
This was the win for the RIO Mp3 player, the RIAA attempt at outlawing MP3 players themselves.
Yes, but the precedent set here appears to be that it is ok to take a CD and make a fair use copy of the data onto another medium (a concept the RIAA seems unwilling to grasp).
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Comments from Legislators on the Georgia's State Super-DMCA Legislation

EFGA has solicited comments from all of the Georgia House members on this legislation. We display their comments below, generally whole without editing. We welcome comments from our policymakers either for or against the bill.

From State Representative Chip Rogers (R) SH015, Woodstock, GA
I believe HB 867 in its current form will cause more harm than good. Particularly in the area of internet security. It is my understanding that this legislation would outlaw internet firewall security on a home network. The results of removing these necessary safeguards would likely cause serious problems for consumers. In theory an attempt to stop the theft of certain services is commendable. However, this legislation goes too far in that effort and could actually make information theft even more pervasive.

Jack Murphy (R) SH014 Cumming, GA says
I think the intentions of Rep. Golick were good on HB 867. But I cannot support the bill as currently written. There are too many areas in the bill that effects business. In fact, if the bill were to be passed as is, I guess the technical support for the legislature would be in violation.

The Sponsor of the Bill, Rich Golick tells us
HB 867 is a first draft at an attempt to update the Theft of Telecommunications Act. I introduced the Bill late in the Session in order to ensure that ample time would be spent during the balance of the year "getting it right;" that is, arriving at a version that would properly update the Act but not allow the introduction of the law of unintended consequences. I don't want us to take any steps backward with regard to our access to or use of technology. That being said, I have heard from some friends in the technology community who do have credible substantive concerns. Accordingly, I've scheduled a meeting with interested parties (open meeting) for June 13 at 8 AM in Room 606 Legislative Office Building to begin discussions and planning for a technology working group to come up with a substitute Bill in preparation for next January.

Charles E. Bannister (R-SH 070 P1)
This legislation certainly should be studied. It is very broad in the original concept. Furthermore, in this very early age of the internet it is perhaps to soon to begin restriction of this type without further study. Perhaps we should move more slowly and watch the federal legislation. Most legislation is usually introduced for a single purpose or entity. Perhaps there should be more questions as to who the real benefactor or benefactors would be!

EDIT: Meeting Date and time change
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
I attended the meeting today and will post a briefing of it.

The MPAA was in attendance for the first time, well at least a representative for them. She said she was there to just take notes.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
In addition to the Georgia State version DMCA Law HB-867 there is an even worse new Act. The Senate version (SB-103) New Georgia Computer Protection Act.

This is a complete re-write of Georgia existing Computer Law with 27 pages of new Laws.

One of the first items on their Agenda is to exterminate Users immediately that are accused of violating any of these new Laws by confiscating their Computer on the spot and calling the Computer itself "Contraband".

Also in addition to the State taking away your Computer while under Arrest and in the Court system they have your ISP shut down your Internet Account. If the ISP does not comply with the State order within 3 days the ISP is hit with hefty fines and faces Jail time as well.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
EFFector Vol. 16, No. 16 June 19, 2003 ren@eff.org

A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
In the 255th Issue of EFFector:

* Public Has the the Right to Skip or Mute Movie Scenes
* Activism Update: Super-DMCA Victories
* Warner Music Memo to Employees re: P2P
* EFF Submits Letter Opposing Biometric IDs
* Supreme Court to Rule in Library Internet Blocking Case
* Visit the new EFF Store!
* Deep Links (9): Orrin Hatch Wants to Destroy your Computer
* Staff Calendar: 6.24.03 Cory Doctorow at iSociety, London
* Administrivia

For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
http://www.eff.org/

To join EFF or make an additional donation:
http://www.eff.org/support/

EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Public Has the Right to Skip or Mute Movie Scenes

Electronic Frontier Foundation Defends Consumer Rights

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on June 18
asked a federal court to rule that people have the right to use
technology to skip scenes or mute language they find disturbing while
viewing movies they have obtained lawfully.

The case, entitled Huntsman v. Soderbergh, involves consumer use of
software and hardware to skip scenes of sex and violence and to mute
profanity on DVDs of films they have purchased.

"If I buy a DVD and want to use some software to skip or mute parts of
a movie I'm watching at home with my family, I should be able to do
so," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz.

EFF filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case to counter the claim
of the eight major Hollywood studios that technology vendors are
creating a "derivative work" of movies by allowing consumers to use
software and hardware to skip and mute movie scenes. Specifically, the
brief points out that copyright owners should have no control over how
people choose to watch movies in the privacy of their own homes.

"The Huntsman case doesn't affect the free speech or artistic license
of movie directors and studios, since they already control public
showings of their films under copyright law," said EFF Staff Attorney
Wendy Seltzer. "The EFF brief urges the court to reject the Hollywood
studios' lawsuit and preserve the public's right to control the
viewing experience of films purchased for home use."

Links
For this release:
http://www.eff.org/Cases/Huntsman_v_Soderbergh/20030618_eff_pr.php

EFF amicus brief in Huntsman v. Soderbergh case:
http://www.eff.org/Cases/Huntsman_v_Soderbergh/20030618_eff_amicus.php

Huntsman v. Soderbergh case archive:
http://www.eff.org/Cases/Huntsman_v_Soderbergh/

Video of debate on Huntsman v. Soderbergh case:
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/events/clearplay.html

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Activism Update: Super-DMCA Victories

In March of this year, EFF became aware that many states were being
pressured by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to adopt
legislation that would have serious consequences for freedom of
speech, encryption, and the public's rights. Described by the MPAA as
an uncontroversial update to existing laws, this "Super-DMCA"
legislation was adopted in six states before advocacy groups or
citizens were alerted. Over the last few months, however, coalitions
of individuals and organizations have made astounding progress in
defeating the legislation in the ten remaining states where it was
introduced.

Activists were successful in convincing legislators in Georgia,
Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas
to table the legislation until after the summer. In Oregon, the
bill's sponsor publicly retracted his support. None of these states
will vote on the bills in the current session despite 11th-hour
amendment attempts by the MPAA.

While three state legislatures did pass S-DMCA legislation this year,
no governor has yet signed one into law. In fact, Colorado Governor
Bill Owens vetoed the Colorado S-DMCA, citing concern that it would
"stifle legal activity by entities all along the high tech spectrum."
Repeal efforts are also underway in several states.

These victories could not have been realized without the tireless
efforts of activists in each of the affected states. EFF would
particularly like to thank Adina Levin from ACLU-Texas and Jon
Lebkowsky from EFF-Austin for their outstanding contributions over the
last few months. We'd also like to recognize Public Knowledge, the
Free Software Foundation, the Consumer Electronics Association,
EF-Georgia, Tennessee Digital Freedom, Peoples' Rights, various Linux
Users' Groups, Harvard's Berkman Center, Nashville Linux Users Group,
bloggers and concerned community members who continue to contribute to
the success of this campaign.

If you live in an affected state and you're interested in getting
involved with activists in your area, please email ren@eff.org
with the word "S-DMCA" in the subject.

Links
EFF's comprehensive archive of S-DMCA material:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Warner Music Memo to Employees re: P2P

[Special Notice to EFFector readers who are also employees of Warner
Music--In case you missed this memo, we thought we'd do you the
service of reprinting it here.]

Warner Music Group
TO: All WMG Personnel
FROM: Dave Johnson
SUBJECT: Policy on copyright infringement and the use of
"peer-to-peer" systems
DATE: June 3, 2003
COPIES TO: Roger Ames

As each of you is undoubtedly aware, the illegal copying of CDs is a
serious matter that is adversely affecting the entire music
community. Lost revenue as a result of piracy undermines the passion
and hard work we bring to our jobs, threatening our livelihood and
the livelihood of our artists. Copyright infringement is also
illegal, no less so than shoplifting a CD. Downloading copyrighted
music and burning CDs from peer-to-peer networks such as KaZaA,
Morpheus, Gnutella or any other similar service is a violation of
the law, and will not be tolerated among WMG employees.

If you have peer-to-peer software on your company computer, you must
remove it immediately. Failure to do so, and the failure to respect
music copyrights may lead to disciplinary action, including
termination.

Beginning shortly, we will scan our computer network to detect the
presence of file sharing software on company computers, so again, it
is important that you remove the software immediately. If you need
assistance in removing file sharing software, please contact your IT
department. Your cooperation on this matter is essential.

The good news is that we have been working hard in recent years to
stimulate a legitimate online market for music, and we encourage you
to try out the music services in which we're involved. You can
access some of them at the following link:
http://www.musicunited.org/6_legalsites.html

We understand that a few employees need to access peer-to-peer
services in connection with legitimate company business activities.
Those employees should contact Jim Watson (James.Watson@wmg.com) so
that proper authorization and access can be arranged.

If you are not sure whether an activity is covered by this policy,
you should consult your supervisor or Mark Ansorge (212-275-1348)
[mark.ansorge@wmg.com] of the WMG Legal Department.

You also may want to take this opportunity to consider whether any
peer-to-peer services are being used on computers in your home.
Please keep in mind that use of peer-to-peer services to download
copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owner,
whether in your office or your home, is illegal. It is also unfair
to all of the talented individuals (including yourself) who
contribute to the creation and marketing of creative works.

Thank you for your attention.

Links
This memo is available online at:
http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1609

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* EFF Submits Letter Opposing Biometric IDs

On Tuesday, June 17, EFF sent a letter to the California State
Assembly opposing legislation that endorses the use of biometrics for
identification purposes. AB 25 would require state agencies to accept
only foreign-government-issued identification cards that use
biometrics (in this case, digitized thumb prints that meet National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards). EFF is
concerned that reliance on biometric identifiers will dramatically
raise the stakes for identity theft and raise serious privacy concerns
while failing to provide substantive security benefits.

Links
EFF's letter on AB 25:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/letter-to-nunez.php

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Supreme Court to Rule in Library Internet Blocking Case

Library Patrons' First Amendment Rights Hang in the Balance

San Francisco, CA - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) expects
the Supreme Court to release its decision on the ALA v. USA case
involving Internet blocking in libraries in the remaining two weeks
of its term.

The court is considering an appeal of a legal challenge to the
portions of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requiring
installation of technology protection measures, such as Internet
blocking or filtering software, in libraries that wish to receive
certain federal funding or discounts.

The court usually reports decisions on Mondays, thus EFF anticipates
the ruling on one of the following dates: June 23 or 30.

EFF is a co-counsel in the case following the lead of the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Links
For this advisory:
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Censorware/20030611_eff_pr.php

ALA v. USA case archive:
http://www.eff.org/Cases/ALA_v_US/

ACLU on CIPA:
http://www.aclu.org/Cyber-Liberties/Cyber-Libertieslist.cfm?c=55

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Visit the new EFF Store!

In an effort to make available all EFF-related schwag for true
EFFanatics, we've recently opened up a small online store. EFF
t-shirts from years past (sizes and selection limited!), the latest
version of the LNX-BBC Bootable Business Card, and recent EFF stickers
are among the goodies for sale. More items will be added in the near
future, so stop by often!

EFF Store URL:
http://shop.eff.org

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Deep Links
Deep Links features noteworthy news items, victories, and threats from
around the Internet.

~ Orrin Hatch Wants to Destroy your Computer
Don't take our word for it. On stopping piracy, Senator Hatch sez,
"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines,
we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the
only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines.":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6559-2003Jun17.html

~ RIAA Sends C&Ds to Verizon Customers
A federal court ruled earlier this month that Verizon couldn't protect
the anonymity of its subscribers:
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/6118823.htm

~ Europe's New Statutorily-Mandated Feedback Loop for Flamers
A new European "right-of-reply" law would force websites to provide
rebuttal opportunities for people who feel that they've been maligned:
http://news.com.com/2010-1071_3-1017333.html

~ DirecTV now Suing Customers Directly
The L.A.-based company is suing hundreds of its customers for owning
multipurpose technology:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1055463653964

~ Korean P2P Company Wins Court Battle
According to the judge, p2p software Soribada "merely connected
servers without specific mention as to how, when or who helped in
infringing on intellectual properties (sic) rights:"
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200305/200305150027.html

~ Who Wants to Know?
Fox News with an overview of Internet privacy concerns:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89284,00.html

~ Lamar Smith Supports Fair Use for DTV
And he is asking the FCC to do the same when considering the broadcast
flag:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-1015469.html

~ Burning Down the House: Ripping, Recording, Remixing, and More
Eliot Van Buskirk's new book focuses on using free software to do
things like rip a scratched CD, remix your favorite song or run your
own Internet radio station:
http://shorterlink.com/?L5J4ZU

~ Bettered by the Borrower
The Washington Post on fanfiction with a quote from EFF's Wendy Seltzer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7412-2003Jun17.html

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Staff Calendar
For a complete listing of EFF speaking engagements (with locations and
times), please visit:
http://www.eff.org/calendar/

~ Tuesday, June 24th : Cory Doctorow at iSociety, London - (12:30 PM -
2:30 PM)
Open Spectrum: Setting The Airwaves Free? The Work Foundation, 3
Carlton House Terrace, London
http://www.theworkfoundation.com/research/isociety/open_spectrum.jsp

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Administrivia

EFFector is published by:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
http://www.eff.org/

Editor:
Ren Bucholz, Activist
ren@eff.org

To Join EFF online, or make an additional donation, go to:
https://secure.eff.org/

Membership & donation queries:
membership@eff.org

General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries:
ask@eff.org

Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To
reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for
their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements &
articles may be reproduced individually at will.

To change your address or other information, please visit:
http://action.eff.org/subscribe/

If you have already subscribed to the EFF Action Center, please visit:
http://action.eff.org/action/login.asp.

To unsubscribe from the EFFector mailing list, send an email to
alerts@action.eff.org with the word "Remove" in the subject.

(Please ask ren@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if this
does not work for some reason.)

Back issues are available at:
http://www.eff.org/effector

You can also get the latest issue of EFFector via the Web at:
http://www.eff.org/effector/current.html

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,954
577
126
Yes, but the precedent set here appears to be that it is ok to take a CD and make a fair use copy of the data onto another medium (a concept the RIAA seems unwilling to grasp).
Actually, there was no "precedent" set here at all for fair use. What the court ruled was, that RIAA cannot enjoin Diamond as the manufacturer of a covered device nor can RIAA seek copyright infringement action against Diamond because the RIO doesn't fall within the definition of a recording device under the Audio Home Recording Act.

Under the AHRA, manufacturers of covered devices are required to (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement what is known as a serial copyright management system (or SCMS) which prevents all but first generation copies.

RIAA contended Diamond had a duty to comply with requirements #1 ~ #3 above because the RIO was not exempted under the AHRA. The Court ruled the RIO was exempted by AHRA and thus Diamond did not have a duty to comply with the requirements.

The only precedent set here is that RIO (and devices like it) are exempt from AHRA.

RIAA is, however, free to pursue copyright infringement against those who purchase and use the RIO, it just can't pursue action against Diamond for making and selling it.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
(B) conceal from a communication service
provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of
origin or destination of any communication;


are they talking about this? too bad for them......

The Anonymizer provides Secure Shell (SSH) access for secure connections to our servers. This extends the Anonymizer Surfing service by allowing you to secure your mail and news access. Plus, this service adds the extra protection of a completely encrypted connection, for privacy beyond what standard consumer products offer.

$100 a year.....

I might just have to rent some server space on one of the platforms offshore in international waters and set one of these up for myself and my friends here at AT.....