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

[dmcowen674]

Something that has really eaten at me and bothered me since I attended the meetings here in Georgia on this State DMCA stuff. I forget who said it while I was at the meeting but said that the Georgia Representative, in this case Rich Golick was put in there (Office) to make Laws, the reason why they are called Lawmakers and is the reason he has to put this Law or some version of it into the books.

I disagree. I do not believe they are solely "Lawmakers". People are elected into positions to represent the people and in this case he was elected to represent the people from his district which is the Northwest area of the Atlanta Metro. True as a group the Representatives also are to act and represent the best interests of all of the citizens of the State as well. Which leads me to this. A foreign entity in this case the MPAA, from Hollywood California asks this Representative to represent the interests of this foreign out of State entity for their behalf. Has nothing to do with the best interests of the citizens of Georgia or specifically the interests of the people in his district that elected him to represent them.

There is no citizens anywhere in the State or the Country coming up and pleading to the Representatives that the citizenry needs another Law on the books and specifically this Law.
I don't agree that these people are put solely into Office to create and expand the Law database exponentially. What is wrong with existing Laws that have governed the Country since it's inception?

Same goes for the late Walt Disney, did he somehow miraculously rise up from his grave that he insist to Congress that his spirit must have the sole rights to Steamboat Willy for 150 years beyond his creators death? I don't think so. There is no justification on the behalf of the citizens that Congress did what they did for Disney and now so many unscrupulous Companies exploiting this rape of the public.

I would not regard the Representative any less of a Politician or a man if he was to stand up to the MPAA or any other private interests and say "This is not in the best interests of the citizens and I will not support it".

Same goes for Congress, that is why we the citizenry regard many of these individuals as scum because they do scum things instead of representing the best interests of the people.

When Election time comes around, do your part, job and right, do some washing and get rid of the scum by voting.

 

[ProviaFan]

Very well said. I'm glad to see they still haven't started working on fleecing Indiana yet, but I'm sure they'll try to screw us sometime in the future.

 

[dmcowen674]

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>

 

[ProviaFan]

Now SCO is saying that they won't be suing Linux users. Tomorrow they will be threatening lawsuits again (they can never keep their story straight).

 

[dmcowen674]

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

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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

It just confirms that Sharman Networks is a disreputable company. First, you have the blatant hypocrisy of whining about their copyrights when their own purpose is facilitating copyright infringement. Then, you have the issue of all the spyware and trojans they secretly bundle with Kazaa.

Who knows what Sharman monitors from people foolish enough to install Kazaa? If they aren't in collusion with the RIAA, they're twin sons of different mothers. Beware.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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

It just confirms that Sharman Networks is a disreputable company. First, you have the blatant hypocrisy of whining about their copyrights when their own purpose is facilitating copyright infringement. Then, you have the issue of all the spyware and trojans they secretly bundle with Kazaa.

Who knows what Sharman monitors from people foolish enough to install Kazaa? If they aren't in collusion with the RIAA, they're twin sons of different mothers. Beware.

I hardly think this is justification for labeling Sharman networks as a wholly disreputable organization. Plenty of organizations which are, undoubtedly, the staples of the technology industry have (unfairly, IMO) exploited the DMCA to further their purposes, in a much similar way.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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

It just confirms that Sharman Networks is a disreputable company. First, you have the blatant hypocrisy of whining about their copyrights when their own purpose is facilitating copyright infringement. Then, you have the issue of all the spyware and trojans they secretly bundle with Kazaa.

Who knows what Sharman monitors from people foolish enough to install Kazaa? If they aren't in collusion with the RIAA, they're twin sons of different mothers. Beware.

I hardly think this is justification for labeling Sharman networks as a wholly disreputable organization. Plenty of organizations which are, undoubtedly, the staples of the technology industry have (unfairly, IMO) exploited the DMCA to further their purposes, in a much similar way.

I disagree. In my book, any company that exploits abusive legislation and distributes their products with embedded spyware and trojans qualifies as disreputable. YMMV, of course.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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

It just confirms that Sharman Networks is a disreputable company. First, you have the blatant hypocrisy of whining about their copyrights when their own purpose is facilitating copyright infringement. Then, you have the issue of all the spyware and trojans they secretly bundle with Kazaa.

Who knows what Sharman monitors from people foolish enough to install Kazaa? If they aren't in collusion with the RIAA, they're twin sons of different mothers. Beware.

I hardly think this is justification for labeling Sharman networks as a wholly disreputable organization. Plenty of organizations which are, undoubtedly, the staples of the technology industry have (unfairly, IMO) exploited the DMCA to further their purposes, in a much similar way.

I disagree. In my book, any company that exploits abusive legislation and distributes their products with embedded spyware and trojans qualifies as disreputable. YMMV, of course.

Sure, the spyware may make them a disreputable company (with plenty of company, of course) but if you were a businessman you'd be using these exploitative laws too, as long as they helped your business.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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

This is legally kind of stupid for such a company to be using the DMCA against someone else in this manner, but the effect is limited. One can still find a link to Kazaa Lite on google in a matter of seconds.

 

[SuperTool]

How come I am getting 378,000 results for "Kazaa Lite"?

 

[DaiShan]

Time for Armed rebellion.

 

[Tripleshot]

That may happen. Whoa be to the person that walks into my home to take my computers. I am armed, and lethal. I will shoot first and ask questions later. I will defend my home and my rights to privacy, quite enjoyment of my property, and illegal search and seizure. This RIAA crap has got to end. They are lawyers after money to line their own pockets. I have yet to hear of one single artist re imbursed for alleged loss of royalty. Have any of you heard of any artist getting funds? Many people have been sued, and settled. Where is the money?

EDIT:

BTW,I just went to the google site and see plenty of links to download kazaa in many different configurations. Where's the beef here?

 

[Tab]

TripleShot I'd love to see you take that in court. You can't beat a Multi-Billion Dollar Company like the RIAA. You stole from the RIAA, its plain and simple.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Tabb
TripleShot I'd love to see you take that in court. You can't beat a Multi-Billion Dollar Company like the RIAA. You stole from the RIAA, its plain and simple.

Are you calling me a thief? You don't even know me. Check again, fool. I don't have Kazaa or any other download proggy on my PC's. That doesn't mean I have control of others who can wardrive by my house wirelessly and access the net from my ISP address and me get blamed. Or my kids friends coming in and downloading something to their laptops.

Yea punk, I''ll take that to court. And you can eat sh!t. :|

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: Tabb
TripleShot I'd love to see you take that in court. You can't beat a Multi-Billion Dollar Company like the RIAA. You stole from the RIAA, its plain and simple.

Are you calling me a thief? You don't even know me. Check again, fool. I don't have Kazaa or any other download proggy on my PC's. That doesn't mean I have control of others who can wardrive by my house wirelessly and access the net from my ISP address and me get blamed. Or my kids friends coming in and downloading something to their laptops.

Yea punk, I''ll take that to court. And you can eat sh!t. :|

You can't "steal" intellectual property. You can definitely infringe upon it, but legal terminology aside... anyway, I digress... and I'm not calling TS a thief or infringer. Making assumptions about people you don't know on an internet forum makes you look like the highlighted portion of that word.

TripleShot, BTW, there was one instance where a bill was to be passed (whether it ever did or not I do not know) requiring the RIAA to accurately report their earnings to the artists. They were against it. How coincidential. :disgust:

 

[Tripleshot]

TripleShot, BTW, there was one instance where a bill was to be passed (whether it ever did or not I do not know) requiring the RIAA to accurately report their earnings to the artists. They were against it. How coincidential.

Who's bill? Fed or state? Let's get some evidence to substantiate that and get that to the public domain for digestion. RIAA is an abuse of judicial power IMHO. It needs to be called to task. I would like the name of every lawyer in that organization to form a black list. And then post that in the public domain.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

TripleShot, BTW, there was one instance where a bill was to be passed (whether it ever did or not I do not know) requiring the RIAA to accurately report their earnings to the artists. They were against it. How coincidential.

Who's bill? Fed or state? Let's get some evidence to substantiate that and get that to the public domain for digestion. RIAA is an abuse of judicial power IMHO. It needs to be called to task. I would like the name of every lawyer in that organization to form a black list. And then post that in the public domain.

The bill
It passed the California Senate (no more word on it that I could find now)
Alas, I can not find the news posting where it explicitly stated that the RIAA was against this. Maybe it's just my imagination, or maybe I'm just too tired to conduct a proper search now. If it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to find (unless the RIAA has been ordering Google via the DMCA to remove stuff that makes them look bad).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

TripleShot, BTW, there was one instance where a bill was to be passed (whether it ever did or not I do not know) requiring the RIAA to accurately report their earnings to the artists. They were against it. How coincidential.

Who's bill? Fed or state? Let's get some evidence to substantiate that and get that to the public domain for digestion. RIAA is an abuse of judicial power IMHO. It needs to be called to task. I would like the name of every lawyer in that organization to form a black list. And then post that in the public domain.

The bill
It passed the California Senate (no more word on it that I could find now)
Alas, I can not find the news posting where it explicitly stated that the RIAA was against this. Maybe it's just my imagination, or maybe I'm just too tired to conduct a proper search now. If it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to find (unless the RIAA has been ordering Google via the DMCA to remove stuff that makes them look bad).

Nice find. It is very apparent the Musicians are looking to get out from under the power of the RIAA as well.
Amazing how an organization can get more powerful than the United State Government on U.S. soil.
Ah, the power of money.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

TripleShot, BTW, there was one instance where a bill was to be passed (whether it ever did or not I do not know) requiring the RIAA to accurately report their earnings to the artists. They were against it. How coincidential.

Who's bill? Fed or state? Let's get some evidence to substantiate that and get that to the public domain for digestion. RIAA is an abuse of judicial power IMHO. It needs to be called to task. I would like the name of every lawyer in that organization to form a black list. And then post that in the public domain.

The bill
It passed the California Senate (no more word on it that I could find now)
Alas, I can not find the news posting where it explicitly stated that the RIAA was against this. Maybe it's just my imagination, or maybe I'm just too tired to conduct a proper search now. If it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to find (unless the RIAA has been ordering Google via the DMCA to remove stuff that makes them look bad).

Thanks . I read the bill. It explicity cites RIAA as being in opposition.

OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/12/03)


Recording Industry Association of America

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Recording Industry

The Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA), in opposition, argues that
this bill is fundamentally inconsistent with
well-established California law; would distort the
intensely negotiated, arms-length contractual relationship
between an artist and recording label by imposing a
fiduciary duty on only one party; and is unnecessary given
the robust legal remedies already available to artists and
the recent voluntary marketplace responses by recording
labels to ensure further that royalty reporting and
auditing practices are fair and accurate. It also writes:


1.The overwhelming number of contractual relationships
between artists and recording labels do not involve
disputes or audits. Only about 100 audits are initiated
each year with the five major recording companies.

2.When disputes do arise, they are not the result of
intentional underreporting. Some disputes are good-faith
disagreements over the interpretation and application of
provisions in complex agreements governing a relationship
where each album may have numerous payees and is sold in
multiple configurations at different prices throughout
the world.
3.Audits are sometimes used by artists as leverage to







SB 1034
Page
7

renegotiate the terms of an existing contract once the
artist achieves success. Audit claims are often inflated
by auditors whose careers depend upon high pay-outs to
their clients.

4.Monies paid as a result of audits are generally less than
one percent of total royalties paid, and many audits are
either completely dismissed or are settled for a small
fraction of the amount claimed.

5.When money is paid, it is often to maintain good
relations with artists who control the timing and
delivery of albums and not because payment is owed.

RIAA also contends that some of the labels have instituted
changes in response to the joint hearings. For example, in
late November 2002, BMG announced it was revising its
contracts to eliminate the contract deductions which many
artists complained were artificial. Late that month,
Vivendi-Universal (VU) announced that it will give auditors
for artists access to manufacturing documents. Warner has
announced that it would also allow access to manufacturing
records as well as paying interest at the prime rate on the
payable portion of any settlement and paying the artist's
reasonable audit costs up to $25,000 if the audit reveals
undercrediting of royalties exceeding 10 percent. RIAA
argues that these marketplace responses highlight the lack
of need for this bill, and contend that the Committee
should allow the market to adjust before rushing to enact
legislation that will have ill effects.

RIAA complains that this bill arbitrarily singles out the
artist-label relationship from a number of other similar
marketplace relationships and punishes it with punitive
legislation. RIAA points out that contractual obligations
to account can be found in a number of related
relationships: artists/managers, promoters/artists, and
artists/producers. Similarly, contractual obligations to
account are commonplace in the television, movie and book
industries. All of these relationships sometimes produce
disputes. RIAA contends that there simply is no evidence
that the number or nature of disputes in these
relationships are any different than those found between
artists and labels.

 

[dmcowen674]

9-3-2003 Court: ISP subpoenas a 'grave' matter

"The subpoena power is a substantial delegation of authority to private parties, and those who invoke it have a grave responsibility to ensure it is not abused," said Judge Alex Kozinski.

This case is not related to the RIAA Vs Verizon or SBC cases, however legal experts say this ruling may eventually apply to the tactics being used by the RIAA/MPAA.

In the case that led to last week's ruling, an attorney obtained 339 e-mail messages--including personal communications and mail that had no relevance to the lawsuit--from the ISP, NetGate.

The panel ruled that the attorney had violated two federal laws: the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Stored Communications Act "reflects Congress' judgment that users have a legitimate interest in the confidentiality of communications in electronic storage at a communications facility.

"Just as trespass protects those who rent space from a commercial storage facility to hold sensitive documents, the Act protects users whose electronic communications are in electronic storage with an ISP or other electronic communications facility."

 

[dmcowen674]

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!@

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

 

[dmcowen674]

DMCA P2P Copyright infringment notice from Off Topic, user had a Movie file on the computer
-------------------------
COX wants me to NOT USE OVERNET anymore... WTH? They sent me a letter stating to stop using it. Can they do this??

Originally posted by: jliechty
How about a link to the thread instead of a full-text copy&paste. It's easier to read that way.

BTW, Overnet is not illegal, but sharing some things on it is. (IANAL)

Edited: Here is the link to the AT member getting DMCA letter for using Overnet instead of the whole thread, tanks Jliechty

I also added a bit of humor below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a more Humorous Note but could potentially happen:





Keyboard Manufacturers Named in DMCA Suit

By wji
Thu Oct 9th, 2003 at 05:33:55 AM EST

German-based media giant Bertelsmann Group has launched a 400 million
dollar lawsuit against major hardware manufacturers, alleging they traffic
in banned circumvention devices that can be used to illegally copy their
music CDs. It says that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act entitles it to
protection from devices that can be used to circumvent its technological
protections against piracy. Specifically, it demands compensation for the
inclusion of "Shift" buttons on standard computer keyboards.

Papers filed today in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, CA, allege
that nine hardware manufacturers based in Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and the US
violated section 1201(c) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act or DMCA by
manufacturing and selling a variety of input devices containing the device,
which BMG describes an illegal lock-pick specifically designed for its
copyrighted works.

The lawsuit came after the revelation Wednesday that BMG's anti-ripping
software for music CDs can be circumvented by depressing the Shift key
while inserting the disc. An industry spokesman strenuously denied that
their products were intended for such use, but BMG says that's not
relevant. "The [DMCA] bans the traffic in any technology with no
significant purpose other than circumvention," said BMG Public Affairs
Director Martin Helmsholtz. When a reporter asked if writing capital
letters was not a significant purpose, Hemsholtz replied 'WHAT DO YOU THINK
CAPS LOCK IS FOR/'.

Legal insiders say BMG's case may be stronger than one might think. "The
Universal v. Reimerdes decision is pretty clear," said Daniel Rueben of
Harvard law school, referring to the first significant DMCA lawsuit. "You
can cross the line just by explaining how something works, or telling
someone where to find out how something works. I'm surprised that IBM
wasn't named for its keyboard input standard, which includes the shift
keycode."

The suit is supported by the Recording Industry Association of America,
which includes all major music labels. RIAA president Jack Valenti slammed
keyboard companies for what he called "the next thing to armed robbery",
adding that "They even put two of these keys on each model, and make them
two or three times as large so you can't miss it. That's not incitement to
piracy?"

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for the 12th of December.

_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

 

[ProviaFan]

How about a link to the thread instead of a full-text copy&paste. It's easier to read that way.

BTW, Overnet is not illegal, but sharing some things on it is. (IANAL)