June 2002 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Artist's rights? [was: RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet]
by Trei, Peter 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

> Ken Brown[SMTP:k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk] wrote: > "Trei, Peter" wrote: > > > As an example, consider the Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc', a 12 foot > > high, 120 foot long, 70 ton slab of rusty (and usually grafitti covered) > > steel which blocked the entrance to the main Federal building in > > lower Manhatten for several years. After about a zillion complaints, > > it was moved, and Serra sued the GSA for $30million, on the grounds > > that the piece was "site specific", and that by moving it the GSA had > > destroyed it. > > > > http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/tilted_arc.htm > > But the important point about that is that the artist lost! According > to the website the tried "breach of contract, trademark violations, > copyright infringement and the violation of First and Fifth Amendment > rights" and lost all of them. So the new law has no real effect other > than to give a few days work to some lawyers. > > [...] > > > http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_101-25/123.WL.VARA.pdf > > discusses the 'Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, which is highly > > relevant to this topic. > Serra's work was moved in 1989, about a year before VARA went into effect. I suspect that 'Tilted Arc' affair was one of VARA's motivations (though any legislator who voted for it should have been condemned to have a Serra sculpture placed in front of his house for a year). Peter

1 0

Artist's rights? [was: RE: Sci Journals, authors, internet]
by Trei, Peter 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

> From: Mike Rosing[SMTP:eresrch@eskimo.com] > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote: > > > The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to > > entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they > > please is represented by parts of the art culture of significant > > political clout, in particular in Europe. Bills are pending or have > > already passed, that make it illegal for a buyer of a work of art to > > simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once > > he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting > > you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you > > are permitted to give the painting back to the artist. Without > > compensation, of course. > > the american artists are also trying to get this kind of "right" > in place for themselves. The perspective isn't so much copyright > as it is "leave it alone forever". But it amounts to the same thing. > As an example, consider the Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc', a 12 foot high, 120 foot long, 70 ton slab of rusty (and usually grafitti covered) steel which blocked the entrance to the main Federal building in lower Manhatten for several years. After about a zillion complaints, it was moved, and Serra sued the GSA for $30million, on the grounds that the piece was "site specific", and that by moving it the GSA had destroyed it. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/tilted_arc.htm I frequently walked by the Arc, and it was a powerful presence, but once it ceased to be a suprise, it was mainly an irritating obstacle. One of Serra's arguments was that the Arc echoed the staircase of a courthouse across the street. I wonder if he'd have sued them for altering that building? http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_101-25/123.WL.VARA.pdf discusses the 'Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, which is highly relevant to this topic. Peter Trei

1 0

Sci Journals, authors, internet
by Steve Furlong 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

On Monday 10 June 2002 22:20, Jim Choate wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Jason Holt wrote: > > copyright issues? Why haven't I seen other papers published on > > usenet and such before going to press? > > ???? This is a joke right? > > Copyright, they want it as the exclusive distributor which they can't > do if it's been published somewhere else. Which is especially impressive since some journals not only wanted the authors to basically give up their copyright but wanted the authors to pay for publication. My experience with scientific journals is more than a few years old. Do any of youse have personal experience with publishing both several years ago and recently? SRF -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Vote Idiotarian --- it's easier than thinking

5 4

Are you losing money adv Hluvrgmb
by powerfulllivingsHLWf6＠howamazing.com 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

1 0

IFSEC highlights - CCTV
by SourceSecurity.com New Product Reviews 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

1 0

WSJ Encrypted Laptop
by mondo96 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

ONLY two more days left to christmas Jimbo This sort of stuff will only go on for a few more years until the distributed process and universal namespace sorts of approaches replace the current paradigms. When that happens losing a laptop will mean nothing because it won't have the data 'on it' in the conventional sense. On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, John Young wrote: > We've noted here the rise in "lost" and "stolen" laptops > containing sensitive and classified information. First, > one or two disappeared while a spook was drunk or > was left behind in a taxi or taken from an unidentified > location. > > Then amazing reports of more losses, the number rising > quickly, finally with surveys revealing hundreds of laptops > have been lost by spooks, cops, senior officals, nuclear > labs, state departments, and so on. Now and then encryption > is mentioned. > > We can see that the lost laptop, and its recent corollary, > the discovered laptop, has become as useful for disinformation > as what is being found in newly revealed secret archives > like those reported today in the Wash Post, "Spies, Lies and > the Distortion of History:" > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55522-2002Feb23.html > > To be sure, the flood of lost laptops both diminishes the > credibility of what is on the laptops and increases it. One way > to increase credibility is to claim files are encrypted. > > What we also know is that encrypted files are now a leading > indicator of credibility, along with the shadowy and enticing > methods used to decrypt by unidentified parties, and to then > carefully distribute the decrypted, authenticated thereby, > if demonized, material. > > Whether there is actually sensitive material in the demonized > files is hard to determine so long as access to the original > files, and a credible account of how they were comeby is > not made available. As with the long history of astonishing > revelations of secrets, lies and videotapes. > > Moving to a related topic, is the use of the Internet for > > leaking and/or psyopping disinformation, in particular > the use of honeypots. > > Cryptome is occasionally charged with being a honeypot, > and it could be, wittingly so if we are succesful in putting > up lurid material to bring in more luridities. A question > though is what information is being gathered by Cryptome > honeypot? The access logs, the pattern and content of > publication, the receipt of hot material, the distribution > of lies and deceptions? And if these are the profits of the > honeypot how is the data collection about them being > done? > > We dream of being able to watch the honeypot harvestors > at work, which accounts for admitting to running a honeypot, > our lost laptop if you will. This hoary rabbit-running practice, > you being the rabbit, as we see here with several practitioners, > carries a Daniel Pearl-like risk. You may well lose your head > to somebody who believes you are a wolf not merely a > headgames-player. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: WSJ Encrypted Laptop
by Jim Choate 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Aimee Farr wrote: > I question how well we correlate strike, protest, subversive > activity/agitation/propaganda, and sabotage/IW inferences these days -- > especially at home, due to domestic constraints. I would think that would > keep a "war room" quite busy with inference scanning. With today's > coordination, it's possible to see shadows of influence, instead of "just > our imagination." Considering the level of inside agents and provocateurs, not only for this sort of stuff but tax evasion and monopolies; pretty damn good I'd guess. Or are you proposing that the FBI agent who provokes an illegal act is also working for somebody besides the FBI? Not likely at the scale you would suggest. Or perhaps you mean that the people in the unions are being infiltraited without the FBI knowing? I suspect that when they run the various background checks they get a clue (assuming they did them and reviewed them). -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: WSJ Encrypted Laptop
by Jim Choate 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

This sort of stuff will only go on for a few more years until the distributed process and universal namespace sorts of approaches replace the current paradigms. When that happens losing a laptop will mean nothing because it won't have the data 'on it' in the conventional sense. On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, John Young wrote: > We've noted here the rise in "lost" and "stolen" laptops > containing sensitive and classified information. First, > one or two disappeared while a spook was drunk or > was left behind in a taxi or taken from an unidentified > location. > > Then amazing reports of more losses, the number rising > quickly, finally with surveys revealing hundreds of laptops > have been lost by spooks, cops, senior officals, nuclear > labs, state departments, and so on. Now and then encryption > is mentioned. > > We can see that the lost laptop, and its recent corollary, > the discovered laptop, has become as useful for disinformation > as what is being found in newly revealed secret archives > like those reported today in the Wash Post, "Spies, Lies and > the Distortion of History:" > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55522-2002Feb23.html > > To be sure, the flood of lost laptops both diminishes the > credibility of what is on the laptops and increases it. One way > to increase credibility is to claim files are encrypted. > > What we also know is that encrypted files are now a leading > indicator of credibility, along with the shadowy and enticing > methods used to decrypt by unidentified parties, and to then > carefully distribute the decrypted, authenticated thereby, > if demonized, material. > > Whether there is actually sensitive material in the demonized > files is hard to determine so long as access to the original > files, and a credible account of how they were comeby is > not made available. As with the long history of astonishing > revelations of secrets, lies and videotapes. > > Moving to a related topic, is the use of the Internet for > > leaking and/or psyopping disinformation, in particular > the use of honeypots. > > Cryptome is occasionally charged with being a honeypot, > and it could be, wittingly so if we are succesful in putting > up lurid material to bring in more luridities. A question > though is what information is being gathered by Cryptome > honeypot? The access logs, the pattern and content of > publication, the receipt of hot material, the distribution > of lies and deceptions? And if these are the profits of the > honeypot how is the data collection about them being > done? > > We dream of being able to watch the honeypot harvestors > at work, which accounts for admitting to running a honeypot, > our lost laptop if you will. This hoary rabbit-running practice, > you being the rabbit, as we see here with several practitioners, > carries a Daniel Pearl-like risk. You may well lose your head > to somebody who believes you are a wolf not merely a > headgames-player. >

1 0

Re: Snitch jamesd outs himself.
by Jim Choate 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

As an operator of one of the nodes, versus somebody who is just a subscriber, I'll be happy to state that while clearly a waste of anybody with a clues time the submissions are not distruptive to the list. Nor or they spam. They are within the charter of cryptography (and related technologies), civil liberties, and economics. This includes technical pieces, speculative pieces, opinion pieces, etc. I've yet to see a threat. A lot of personal opinion and taunts, but no threat. Got an example? Something like "Kill the President" is not a threat. 'The' list is unfiltered, individual nodes may be. Your claim we can't filter him out is specious; we don't want to filter anyone (do you understand this point yet? Geesh) that's your(!!!) job (I know you don't get this one). To attack somebody through their ISP via false claims of abuse for no reason other than they piss you off is the epitome of chicken shit behaviour. It's also another excellent example of what hypocrites the majority of CACL mouthpieces are. -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.open-forge.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, matt taylor wrote: > Do they WANT me to keep changing my address?Do I have to write to every > fuckwit I've beaten in debate when I change ISP's.Fucking stalkers,fuck off > and die.This just in... > > To: support(a)nex.net.au Subject: Re: Youth in Asia CC: profrv(a)nex.com.au > Someone who appears to be posting from a nex.net.au address > <profrv(a)nex.com.au> keeps posting large volumes of spam, > obcenity, death threats to random people, mail bombs, and so forth > to our mailing list. He keeps changing his apparent address, so > we have difficulty filtering him out. > His postings were originally merely excessive and of doubtful > relevance, but have become more and more hostile and harassing. > > On 24 Feb 2002, at 5:29, matt taylor wrote: > > Youth In Asia Society: At our last monthly meeting, we discussed all of the > > reasons there are not to KILL THE PRESIDENT. We think it is our duty to > > inform people of our objection to those who believe it is necessary to KILL > > THE PRESIDENT. We also object to people who are constantly running around, > > shouting, incessantly, "KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE > > PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL > > THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! > > KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT!" We think that > > this is rude. So we would ask you please not to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We > > don't want you to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We think it is inadvisable for you to > > KILL THE PRESIDENT! We certainly hope that you won't KILL THE PRESIDENT! We > > hope that no one you know decides to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We are dedicated > > in our efforts to convince people not to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We think that > > we will be successful in our efforts to convince people not to KILL THE > > PRESIDENT! We don't ask to be thanked for advising people not to KILL THE > > PRESIDENT! Nor do we expect to be thanked for advising people not to run > > around incessantly screaming "KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL > > THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! > > KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE > > PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL > > THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! > > KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE > > PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT!" That's why we post > > anonymously. We're humble. > > > I responded... > To: jamesd(a)echeque.com Subject: Re: Youth in Asia Cc: support(a)nex.net.au > > > This particular message is a copy from the archives of this list,not only > was it relevant to a recent thread RE list censorship being taken on by > self elected list cops but it belongs to a collection I'm gathering for an > article I'm planning. > I'm an entertainment journalist.jamesd is a notorious liar having an entire > website devoted to that topic.http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/jamesd.html > He admits to spending 6 years in Maoist and Trotskyist lying,violent > subversive parties,that, I can believe. > (He is entertaining though) Please > don't contribute to the closure of a once vigorous debating forum.Thanks. > > >

1 0

Re: [Reformatted] Eugene Leitl want to ban thoughtcrime,
by Jim Choate 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Declan McCullagh wrote: > This is the last mattd post I'll see for a while, I expect, since I've > updated my kill.rc file. But the prospect of a cypherpunks subscriber > threatening to send 2 MB attachments to the list is not a pleasant one. Why? They make 80G drives now for very cheap. Got a little pipe, get a bigger one. The only persons who should shudder at 2M attachments are the node operators. They have to deal with n*2M of traffic as compared to your measly 2M. Quite your whinning. > (I suspect that majordomo will refuse to send anything above its default > setting, which I'm not going to name since it'll encourage the mattd troll > to hit that size and nothing above. But Still.) 400000 bytes maximum. The current maximum that has been agreed too informally (it's in the archives if you want to look) is 1M. SSZ is currently set to bounce any emails over 1M (and it's detailed on the homepage). -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0