July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Active Attacks - Already in Progress?
by Theodore Bagwell 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

We recently discussed an attack on onion-routing anonymity, wherein a well-funded adversary overwhelms the network with compromised relays, thereby increasing his chances of monitoring anonymity-compromising data. I don't mean to alarm anyone, but I just did some quick-and-dirty research that suggests such an attempt may already be under way. I hope to be proven wrong. I postulated that such an attacker would mass-deploy his relays in a way that did not lend a whole lot of uniqueness to the name of each relay*. The relay names would probably be random characters, numbers, or words at best. At sloppiest, they would just be one name with sequential numbers after it - "AnonymityAttacker001, AnonymityAttacker002, AnonymityAttacker003, etc." So, I decided to look for such patterns in the list of Relays available in my Tor console. A quick scan revealed what appeared to be either (A) mass-deployments of Tor relays by a singular entity, or (B) astronomically-unlikely coincidental naming schemes adopted by dozens of disparate and unconnected individuals.** But it wasn't just finding these relays that concerned me. It was Tor's affinity for routing through them. See, I began closing my open circuits systematically. I kept records of any circuits which contained PPrivCom___ or torserversNet_ relays in it. I closed and recorded 43 circuits. Here are my findings: While Tor indicated it had 1665 relays to choose from, 79% of my circuits used one of the suspicious relays. 2% of my circuits used two suspicious relays. 0% of my circuits used three suspicious relays. Of the circuits I recorded, only 21% did not route through a suspicious relay. My conclusion is that someone (a security researcher? A hobbyist? A government?) is actively toying with the feasibility of attacking Tor's anonymity. According to my statistics, they may also be gaming Tor's affinity for choosing relays*** because they have, unquestionably, succeeded in relaying 79% of my circuits despite controlling a mere 2.8% of the relays in the Tor network. How dangerous is it if two of the three circuit relays are compromised? What recourse do we have? Can someone more knowledgeable shed more light on this? I yield the balance of my time. :) --- * Of course, the well-organized attacker would go to the trouble to construct names that truly blended in with the Tor namescape - such as,"MrSpudRelays, QueenAnnesRevenge, SteveKenpIsMyHero, and so forth." ** I speak primarily of "torserversNet_" numbers 1-5, and PPrivCom___" numbers 004-052. *** The inner workings of which I, admittedly, do not understand... **** 47 out of 1665 active relays, according to my Tor console. -- Theodore Bagwell toruser1(a)imap.cc -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo(a)torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Active Attacks - Already in Progress?
by Theodore Bagwell 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

We recently discussed an attack on onion-routing anonymity, wherein a well-funded adversary overwhelms the network with compromised relays, thereby increasing his chances of monitoring anonymity-compromising data. I don't mean to alarm anyone, but I just did some quick-and-dirty research that suggests such an attempt may already be under way. I hope to be proven wrong. I postulated that such an attacker would mass-deploy his relays in a way that did not lend a whole lot of uniqueness to the name of each relay*. The relay names would probably be random characters, numbers, or words at best. At sloppiest, they would just be one name with sequential numbers after it - "AnonymityAttacker001, AnonymityAttacker002, AnonymityAttacker003, etc." So, I decided to look for such patterns in the list of Relays available in my Tor console. A quick scan revealed what appeared to be either (A) mass-deployments of Tor relays by a singular entity, or (B) astronomically-unlikely coincidental naming schemes adopted by dozens of disparate and unconnected individuals.** But it wasn't just finding these relays that concerned me. It was Tor's affinity for routing through them. See, I began closing my open circuits systematically. I kept records of any circuits which contained PPrivCom___ or torserversNet_ relays in it. I closed and recorded 43 circuits. Here are my findings: While Tor indicated it had 1665 relays to choose from, 79% of my circuits used one of the suspicious relays. 2% of my circuits used two suspicious relays. 0% of my circuits used three suspicious relays. Of the circuits I recorded, only 21% did not route through a suspicious relay. My conclusion is that someone (a security researcher? A hobbyist? A government?) is actively toying with the feasibility of attacking Tor's anonymity. According to my statistics, they may also be gaming Tor's affinity for choosing relays*** because they have, unquestionably, succeeded in relaying 79% of my circuits despite controlling a mere 2.8% of the relays in the Tor network. How dangerous is it if two of the three circuit relays are compromised? What recourse do we have? Can someone more knowledgeable shed more light on this? I yield the balance of my time. :) --- * Of course, the well-organized attacker would go to the trouble to construct names that truly blended in with the Tor namescape - such as,"MrSpudRelays, QueenAnnesRevenge, SteveKenpIsMyHero, and so forth." ** I speak primarily of "torserversNet_" numbers 1-5, and PPrivCom___" numbers 004-052. *** The inner workings of which I, admittedly, do not understand... **** 47 out of 1665 active relays, according to my Tor console. -- Theodore Bagwell toruser1(a)imap.cc -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo(a)torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[liberationtech] Assange's claim about Tor losing US government support due to WikiLeaks
by Evgeny Morozov 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Those of you who've read Assange's recent interview with The Rolling Stone<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/julian-assange-the-rolling-stone-…>may have noticed this claim (in response to a question about forms of pressure that US government exerted on WikiLeaks and their supporters): The Tor Project, which protects people around the world from being spied on > or censored, lost some $600,000 to the U.S. government, as a result of one > of their people, Jacob Appelbaum, having filled in for me once at a > conference in New York. This type of indirect pressure has been applied to > a great many people. I was a bit puzzled by it. So were people at Cryptome<http://cryptome.org/2012/01/0053.htm>, who asked Tor about it. Here is what Andrew Lewman (who's on this list) wrote to them: I read this statement as well. It is news to me that we were penalized for Jacob. Maybe wikileaks has unreleased information from one of our USG funders. If so, they should publish it for all to review. Now, Andrew's statement is carefully worded, i.e. it does allow for the possibility that Tor lost the USG money but they think it was not Jacob/WikiLeaks-related. So it would be good to know whether a) Tor did lose some or all of USG support between late 2010 and early 2012? and b) there is any evidence to link this to WL, as Assange did? Whatever the motivation, USG cutting support to circumvention tools is a big news item all in itself, regardless of the link to Assange. I wonder why it wasn't more widely reported, if true - perhaps, by Tor project itself?- because ultimately this would all be visible on Tor's financial statements. Evgeny _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story!
by Hahaha 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

The original message is kept in: ssl.gcinet.net:/storage3/var/spool/qmailscan/quarantine where the System Anti-Virus Administrator can further diagnose it. The Email scanner reported the following when it scanned that message: --- ---sweep results --- >>> Virus 'W32/Hybris-B' found in file /storage3/var/spool/qmailscan/ssl.gcinet.net9823410827615/sexy_virgin.scr ---

1 0

[liberationtech] Assange's claim about Tor losing US government support due to WikiLeaks
by Evgeny Morozov 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Those of you who've read Assange's recent interview with The Rolling Stone<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/julian-assange-the-rolling-stone-…>may have noticed this claim (in response to a question about forms of pressure that US government exerted on WikiLeaks and their supporters): The Tor Project, which protects people around the world from being spied on > or censored, lost some $600,000 to the U.S. government, as a result of one > of their people, Jacob Appelbaum, having filled in for me once at a > conference in New York. This type of indirect pressure has been applied to > a great many people. I was a bit puzzled by it. So were people at Cryptome<http://cryptome.org/2012/01/0053.htm>, who asked Tor about it. Here is what Andrew Lewman (who's on this list) wrote to them: I read this statement as well. It is news to me that we were penalized for Jacob. Maybe wikileaks has unreleased information from one of our USG funders. If so, they should publish it for all to review. Now, Andrew's statement is carefully worded, i.e. it does allow for the possibility that Tor lost the USG money but they think it was not Jacob/WikiLeaks-related. So it would be good to know whether a) Tor did lose some or all of USG support between late 2010 and early 2012? and b) there is any evidence to link this to WL, as Assange did? Whatever the motivation, USG cutting support to circumvention tools is a big news item all in itself, regardless of the link to Assange. I wonder why it wasn't more widely reported, if true - perhaps, by Tor project itself?- because ultimately this would all be visible on Tor's financial statements. Evgeny _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [zfs] Edon-R hashing and dedup
by Matthew Ahrens 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:22 AM, SaE!o Kiselkov <skiselkov.ml(a)gmail.com>wrote: > So I've been talking to some people around storage and found out that > SHA-256 hashing *is* a significant cost in implementing dedup. I know I'm arriving late to this discussion. For my own understanding, I'd like to attempt to summarize the various positions and get everyone's feedback. SHA-256 is slow; we'd like to find a faster algorithm to replace it, which will use less CPU. Such a replacement must be usable for dedup without verification. (Performance and behavior with verification is a secondary concern to the points outlined here.) Dedup inherently relies on probabilistic correctness: if there is a hash collision, incorrect data will be returned. This is true even with the best hash algorithms (including SHA-256), and even without the possibility of storing malicious data. However, the probability involved is exceedingly small. Given 2^64 bytes (16 exabytes) in 8KB blocks, the odds of a collision are approximately 1/2^155. This is less likely than consecutively buying 5 jackpot-winning lottery tickets (assuming lottery odds 1/100 million). Dedup is sometimes used with user-generated data (i.e. untrusted, possibly malicious users provide the data to store). In the case, the hash algorithm should be such that it is infeasible to find a block which hashes to a given value. Otherwise an untrusted user may cause ZFS to return incorrect data. Dedup is sometimes used only with trusted data (i.e. none of the data can be maliciously generated). In this case, the algorithm need only distribute input blocks evenly over all 2^256 possible hash values. It is OK if it is feasible to find a block with a given hash value, because the risk associated is no worse than the ideal case (e.g 1/2^155 chance of returning incorrect data with the workload described above). SHA-256 is currently used for both of these use cases (trusted and untrusted data). So a replacement should also be usable for both. Optionally, we could implement a third, even faster, algorithm for use only in the trusted case. Some people believe that this choice may be misused (i.e. used even when the data can not be trusted), and therefore this option should not be offered. I'm not an expert in crypto algorithms; I've only read the wikipedia page on the SHA-3 competition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_hash_function_competition) Being fairly paranoid mainly due to my lack of expertise in this area, I would prefer to choose one of the finalists as a replacement for SHA-256. It sounds like BLAKE and Skein have reasonable performance. I think that the easiest way forward will be to first agree on a high-performance replacement for SHA-256, which is usable in all cases that SHA-256 is, including with untrusted data. We can then evaluate demand for an even faster algorithm to be used only with trusted data. --matt ------------------------------------------- illumos-zfs Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182191/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182191/22842876-6fe17e6f Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22842876&id_secret=22842876-a25d3… Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[thingiverse] 3D printing & intellectual property rights - So why
by Michael＠Oz 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

are we bothering with GPL,CC etc licenses? To: thingiverse(a)googlegroups.com I came across the following and thought a precis may be handy. It implies much of what is on the 'verse is not copyrightable (apart from the artistic stuff), just useful articles. It would even be questionable whether scad programs are copyright. So are the licensing aspects bogus? I started out thinking so, but read on... http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting *"In a practical sense, copyrights and patents are mutually exclusive. If you have a useful article you cannot protect it with a copyright. Conversely, you will not be issued a patent on an artistic work.[9]<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn9>That means that if something is eligible for patent protection b even if it does not have patent protection b it cannot be protected by copyright. This dichotomy is part of the reason why most of the physical world is not protected by any type of intellectual property. Most physical objects serve some utilitarian function, which means that they are not eligible for >copyright protection."* *"As 3D printing and modeling grow in popularity, it is likely that we will see more companies and individuals assuming they have a copyright for a design or object and demanding removal of unauthorized versions. While most modern songs, movies, and pictures are protected by copyright, the same cannot be said for physical objects. For that reason, when a site receives a takedown request it may be wise to at least consider if the object is protected by copyright in the first place."* "*For 3D printing, this digital form is often that of an .stl file.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn43>These files can be thought of as the object equivalent of a .pdf file b they are more or less universally printable by 3D printers and allow objects to be transferred digitally around the world.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn44>But are they protected by copyright? And if they are protected by copyright, what does that mean? * * .Stl files are certainly protect able by copyright. Copyright law specifically mentions "maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans" as included within the scope of works eligible for protection.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn45> However, that does not automatically mean that every design file for a physical object is actually protected by copyright. * * * * After all, if a given diagram is the only practical way to virtually represent a physical object, a copyright on that diagram would prevent anyone from making any virtual versions of the object.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn46>This would give the holder of that copyright a great deal of control over the distribution and manufacture of the object itself. * * In order to avoid this outcome, copyright law limits the copyrightability of these types of works" "Furthermore, even if the design file is protected by copyright, creating a physical version will not infringe on any copyright that exists in the file. No copyright on the design of a useful object extends copyright protection to the object itself." ..."**Furthermore, there is some indication that copying a file of a useful object protected by copyright for the purposes of creating the useful object is not copyright infringement." * *"One way to avoid some of these thorny copyright questions is by distributing objects and designs with permissive licenses such as those provided by Creative Commons.Unfortunately this solution can break down when applied to physical objects beyond the scope of copyright. To put it simply, you cannot license what you do not have."* *"All of that being said, licensing of noncopyrightable files can serve at least two useful purposes b one legal and one cultural.* * * *"The legal purpose is something of a hedge against future legal change. As detailed in this paper, there are many open questions surrounding just what types (and parts) of objects are and are not protectable by copyright. Granting a license today means that the usage conditions of the object are clear no matter how copyright law evolves in the future. As long as the creator does not believe that merely granting the license gives them the right to control non-copyrightable parts of the work, there is little downside to futureproofing the status of the object.* * * *The second, cultural, purpose is probably the more important one. Licensing can be an important signaling device even when it is not legally enforceable. Attaching a Creative Commons license is a signal that the creator wants to include her work in an ever-expanding and evolving network of creativity. It gives the rest of the community confidence that they can build on the object."* * * <http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn55> -- -- Go visit thingiverse at http://thingiverse.com and stay tuned to the blog at http://blog.thingiverse.com. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "thingiverse" group. To post to this group, send email to thingiverse(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to thingiverse+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "thingiverse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thingiverse+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en Learn more at www.diybio.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[thingiverse] 3D printing & intellectual property rights - So why
by Michael＠Oz 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

are we bothering with GPL,CC etc licenses? To: thingiverse(a)googlegroups.com I came across the following and thought a precis may be handy. It implies much of what is on the 'verse is not copyrightable (apart from the artistic stuff), just useful articles. It would even be questionable whether scad programs are copyright. So are the licensing aspects bogus? I started out thinking so, but read on... http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting *"In a practical sense, copyrights and patents are mutually exclusive. If you have a useful article you cannot protect it with a copyright. Conversely, you will not be issued a patent on an artistic work.[9]<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn9>That means that if something is eligible for patent protection b even if it does not have patent protection b it cannot be protected by copyright. This dichotomy is part of the reason why most of the physical world is not protected by any type of intellectual property. Most physical objects serve some utilitarian function, which means that they are not eligible for >copyright protection."* *"As 3D printing and modeling grow in popularity, it is likely that we will see more companies and individuals assuming they have a copyright for a design or object and demanding removal of unauthorized versions. While most modern songs, movies, and pictures are protected by copyright, the same cannot be said for physical objects. For that reason, when a site receives a takedown request it may be wise to at least consider if the object is protected by copyright in the first place."* "*For 3D printing, this digital form is often that of an .stl file.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn43>These files can be thought of as the object equivalent of a .pdf file b they are more or less universally printable by 3D printers and allow objects to be transferred digitally around the world.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn44>But are they protected by copyright? And if they are protected by copyright, what does that mean? * * .Stl files are certainly protect able by copyright. Copyright law specifically mentions "maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans" as included within the scope of works eligible for protection.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn45> However, that does not automatically mean that every design file for a physical object is actually protected by copyright. * * * * After all, if a given diagram is the only practical way to virtually represent a physical object, a copyright on that diagram would prevent anyone from making any virtual versions of the object.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn46>This would give the holder of that copyright a great deal of control over the distribution and manufacture of the object itself. * * In order to avoid this outcome, copyright law limits the copyrightability of these types of works" "Furthermore, even if the design file is protected by copyright, creating a physical version will not infringe on any copyright that exists in the file. No copyright on the design of a useful object extends copyright protection to the object itself." ..."**Furthermore, there is some indication that copying a file of a useful object protected by copyright for the purposes of creating the useful object is not copyright infringement." * *"One way to avoid some of these thorny copyright questions is by distributing objects and designs with permissive licenses such as those provided by Creative Commons.Unfortunately this solution can break down when applied to physical objects beyond the scope of copyright. To put it simply, you cannot license what you do not have."* *"All of that being said, licensing of noncopyrightable files can serve at least two useful purposes b one legal and one cultural.* * * *"The legal purpose is something of a hedge against future legal change. As detailed in this paper, there are many open questions surrounding just what types (and parts) of objects are and are not protectable by copyright. Granting a license today means that the usage conditions of the object are clear no matter how copyright law evolves in the future. As long as the creator does not believe that merely granting the license gives them the right to control non-copyrightable parts of the work, there is little downside to futureproofing the status of the object.* * * *The second, cultural, purpose is probably the more important one. Licensing can be an important signaling device even when it is not legally enforceable. Attaching a Creative Commons license is a signal that the creator wants to include her work in an ever-expanding and evolving network of creativity. It gives the rest of the community confidence that they can build on the object."* * * <http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn55> -- -- Go visit thingiverse at http://thingiverse.com and stay tuned to the blog at http://blog.thingiverse.com. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "thingiverse" group. To post to this group, send email to thingiverse(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to thingiverse+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "thingiverse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thingiverse+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en Learn more at www.diybio.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[thingiverse] 3D printing & intellectual property rights - So why
by Michael＠Oz 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

are we bothering with GPL,CC etc licenses? To: thingiverse(a)googlegroups.com I came across the following and thought a precis may be handy. It implies much of what is on the 'verse is not copyrightable (apart from the artistic stuff), just useful articles. It would even be questionable whether scad programs are copyright. So are the licensing aspects bogus? I started out thinking so, but read on... http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting *"In a practical sense, copyrights and patents are mutually exclusive. If you have a useful article you cannot protect it with a copyright. Conversely, you will not be issued a patent on an artistic work.[9]<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn9>That means that if something is eligible for patent protection b even if it does not have patent protection b it cannot be protected by copyright. This dichotomy is part of the reason why most of the physical world is not protected by any type of intellectual property. Most physical objects serve some utilitarian function, which means that they are not eligible for >copyright protection."* *"As 3D printing and modeling grow in popularity, it is likely that we will see more companies and individuals assuming they have a copyright for a design or object and demanding removal of unauthorized versions. While most modern songs, movies, and pictures are protected by copyright, the same cannot be said for physical objects. For that reason, when a site receives a takedown request it may be wise to at least consider if the object is protected by copyright in the first place."* "*For 3D printing, this digital form is often that of an .stl file.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn43>These files can be thought of as the object equivalent of a .pdf file b they are more or less universally printable by 3D printers and allow objects to be transferred digitally around the world.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn44>But are they protected by copyright? And if they are protected by copyright, what does that mean? * * .Stl files are certainly protect able by copyright. Copyright law specifically mentions "maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans" as included within the scope of works eligible for protection.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn45> However, that does not automatically mean that every design file for a physical object is actually protected by copyright. * * * * After all, if a given diagram is the only practical way to virtually represent a physical object, a copyright on that diagram would prevent anyone from making any virtual versions of the object.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn46>This would give the holder of that copyright a great deal of control over the distribution and manufacture of the object itself. * * In order to avoid this outcome, copyright law limits the copyrightability of these types of works" "Furthermore, even if the design file is protected by copyright, creating a physical version will not infringe on any copyright that exists in the file. No copyright on the design of a useful object extends copyright protection to the object itself." ..."**Furthermore, there is some indication that copying a file of a useful object protected by copyright for the purposes of creating the useful object is not copyright infringement." * *"One way to avoid some of these thorny copyright questions is by distributing objects and designs with permissive licenses such as those provided by Creative Commons.Unfortunately this solution can break down when applied to physical objects beyond the scope of copyright. To put it simply, you cannot license what you do not have."* *"All of that being said, licensing of noncopyrightable files can serve at least two useful purposes b one legal and one cultural.* * * *"The legal purpose is something of a hedge against future legal change. As detailed in this paper, there are many open questions surrounding just what types (and parts) of objects are and are not protectable by copyright. Granting a license today means that the usage conditions of the object are clear no matter how copyright law evolves in the future. As long as the creator does not believe that merely granting the license gives them the right to control non-copyrightable parts of the work, there is little downside to futureproofing the status of the object.* * * *The second, cultural, purpose is probably the more important one. Licensing can be an important signaling device even when it is not legally enforceable. Attaching a Creative Commons license is a signal that the creator wants to include her work in an ever-expanding and evolving network of creativity. It gives the rest of the community confidence that they can build on the object."* * * <http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn55> -- -- Go visit thingiverse at http://thingiverse.com and stay tuned to the blog at http://blog.thingiverse.com. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "thingiverse" group. To post to this group, send email to thingiverse(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to thingiverse+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "thingiverse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thingiverse+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en Learn more at www.diybio.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[thingiverse] 3D printing & intellectual property rights - So why
by Michael＠Oz 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

are we bothering with GPL,CC etc licenses? To: thingiverse(a)googlegroups.com I came across the following and thought a precis may be handy. It implies much of what is on the 'verse is not copyrightable (apart from the artistic stuff), just useful articles. It would even be questionable whether scad programs are copyright. So are the licensing aspects bogus? I started out thinking so, but read on... http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting *"In a practical sense, copyrights and patents are mutually exclusive. If you have a useful article you cannot protect it with a copyright. Conversely, you will not be issued a patent on an artistic work.[9]<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn9>That means that if something is eligible for patent protection b even if it does not have patent protection b it cannot be protected by copyright. This dichotomy is part of the reason why most of the physical world is not protected by any type of intellectual property. Most physical objects serve some utilitarian function, which means that they are not eligible for >copyright protection."* *"As 3D printing and modeling grow in popularity, it is likely that we will see more companies and individuals assuming they have a copyright for a design or object and demanding removal of unauthorized versions. While most modern songs, movies, and pictures are protected by copyright, the same cannot be said for physical objects. For that reason, when a site receives a takedown request it may be wise to at least consider if the object is protected by copyright in the first place."* "*For 3D printing, this digital form is often that of an .stl file.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn43>These files can be thought of as the object equivalent of a .pdf file b they are more or less universally printable by 3D printers and allow objects to be transferred digitally around the world.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn44>But are they protected by copyright? And if they are protected by copyright, what does that mean? * * .Stl files are certainly protect able by copyright. Copyright law specifically mentions "maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans" as included within the scope of works eligible for protection.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn45> However, that does not automatically mean that every design file for a physical object is actually protected by copyright. * * * * After all, if a given diagram is the only practical way to virtually represent a physical object, a copyright on that diagram would prevent anyone from making any virtual versions of the object.<http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn46>This would give the holder of that copyright a great deal of control over the distribution and manufacture of the object itself. * * In order to avoid this outcome, copyright law limits the copyrightability of these types of works" "Furthermore, even if the design file is protected by copyright, creating a physical version will not infringe on any copyright that exists in the file. No copyright on the design of a useful object extends copyright protection to the object itself." ..."**Furthermore, there is some indication that copying a file of a useful object protected by copyright for the purposes of creating the useful object is not copyright infringement." * *"One way to avoid some of these thorny copyright questions is by distributing objects and designs with permissive licenses such as those provided by Creative Commons.Unfortunately this solution can break down when applied to physical objects beyond the scope of copyright. To put it simply, you cannot license what you do not have."* *"All of that being said, licensing of noncopyrightable files can serve at least two useful purposes b one legal and one cultural.* * * *"The legal purpose is something of a hedge against future legal change. As detailed in this paper, there are many open questions surrounding just what types (and parts) of objects are and are not protectable by copyright. Granting a license today means that the usage conditions of the object are clear no matter how copyright law evolves in the future. As long as the creator does not believe that merely granting the license gives them the right to control non-copyrightable parts of the work, there is little downside to futureproofing the status of the object.* * * *The second, cultural, purpose is probably the more important one. Licensing can be an important signaling device even when it is not legally enforceable. Attaching a Creative Commons license is a signal that the creator wants to include her work in an ever-expanding and evolving network of creativity. It gives the rest of the community confidence that they can build on the object."* * * <http://www.publicknowledge.org/Copyright-3DPrinting#_ftn55> -- -- Go visit thingiverse at http://thingiverse.com and stay tuned to the blog at http://blog.thingiverse.com. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "thingiverse" group. To post to this group, send email to thingiverse(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to thingiverse+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "thingiverse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thingiverse+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en Learn more at www.diybio.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0