http://www.boycottadobe.com/pages/rallies.html is now the home for the rally announcements. If you're planning on attending one, please visit this page for info. If you're holding one, please let us know so we can add it to the page. Thanks! -- Len Sassaman Security Architect | Technology Consultant | "Let be be finale of seem." | http://sion.quickie.net | --Wallace Stevens
Just wondering (because maybe you don't live in the US). But why are you all gonna protest because some Russian got arrested for breaking the law?? Don't you have anything better to do with you're time??? (this isn't a flame but if that's how you want to take it be my guest, just wondering why we are soo concerned about some russian.. the principle?? If you want to protest something why not put you're effort into blowing open the Gary Condit fuck up... ) I mean this ass hole fucked some Intern and then killed her... maybe I'm a little crazy here (which I have been told oftern that I am) but that seems a hell of a lot more important then some fucking Commie. Just my 2 cents (after about 12 beers...) -- LinSys http://www.visi0n.net Unix / Security Online Info ----- When you die and your life flashes before your eyes does that include the part where your life flashes before your eyes? ----- On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Len Sassaman wrote:
http://www.boycottadobe.com/pages/rallies.html
is now the home for the rally announcements. If you're planning on attending one, please visit this page for info. If you're holding one, please let us know so we can add it to the page.
Thanks!
--
Len Sassaman
Security Architect | Technology Consultant | "Let be be finale of seem." | http://sion.quickie.net | --Wallace Stevens
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, GeEk wrote:
Just wondering (because maybe you don't live in the US). But why are you all gonna protest because some Russian got arrested for breaking the law??
An unconstitutional law. A law which limits freedom in a country which is ultimately governed by "Congress shall make no law..." If you can't catch that clue, there is no hope.
Don't you have anything better to do with you're time???
It isn't 'my time' in the above situation, I've gotta go ask my master before I can answer your question. It is however a nicely gilded cage.
(this isn't a flame but if that's how you want to take it be my guest, just wondering why we are soo concerned about some russian.. the principle?? If you want to protest something why not put you're effort into blowing open the Gary Condit fuck up... )
No accounting for taste.
I mean this ass hole fucked some Intern and then killed her... maybe I'm a little crazy here (which I have been told oftern that I am) but that seems a hell of a lot more important then some fucking Commie.
If you got proof, run with it...nobody else seems to have any proof.
Just my 2 cents (after about 12 beers...)
;) -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 10:39:06PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
An unconstitutional law. A law which limits freedom in a country which is ultimately governed by "Congress shall make no law..."
If you can't catch that clue, there is no hope.
The interesting thing in this case is that Dmitry was not arrested for discussing or revealing information about Adobe's arguably-sucky copy protection system. If you read the FBI affidavit (http://cryptome.org/usa-v-sklyarov.htm), you'll note that the FBI seems only concerned about his commercial activities: Diaz affirmed that he believes the Elcomsoft Software program, coupled with the Elcomsoft unlocking key, circumvents protection afforded by a technological measure developed by Adobe for its Acrobat eBook Reader either by avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactiviating, or otherwise impairing the technological measure. I believe Dmitry Sklyarov, employee of Elcomsoft and the individual listed on the Elcomsoft software products as the copyright holder of the program sold and produced by Elcomsoft, known as the Advanced eBook Processor, has willfully and for financial gain (etc.) That's because the DMCA only makes commercial circumvention a crime: (a) In general. -- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, (1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years or both, for the first offense Non-commercial circumvention may, of course, be a civil offense, as 2600 found out in the New York case brought by the movie studios. This state of affairs creates a mild problem (to go back to the recent topic of discussion on cypherpunks) for those who strongly believe in the First Amendment when applied to nonprofit or not-for-profit speech but less so when it comes to speech that's part of a commercial transaction. For instance, a guy ranting on Usenet, they say, should have free speech rights, but the tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies can properly be muzzled. Let's hope Dmitry, a budding capitalist, doesn't fall into that same commercial-speech-can-be-regulated catchall. -Declan
Declan McCullagh writes:
That's because the DMCA only makes commercial circumvention a crime:
(a) In general. -- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, (1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years or both, for the first offense
Non-commercial circumvention may, of course, be a civil offense, as 2600 found out in the New York case brought by the movie studios.
This state of affairs creates a mild problem (to go back to the recent topic of discussion on cypherpunks) for those who strongly believe in the First Amendment when applied to nonprofit or not-for-profit speech but less so when it comes to speech that's part of a commercial transaction.
For instance, a guy ranting on Usenet, they say, should have free speech rights, but the tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies can properly be muzzled. Let's hope Dmitry, a budding capitalist, doesn't fall into that same commercial-speech-can-be-regulated catchall.
I agree, and I fear that this is why StreamBox settled in the _Real Networks v. Streambox_ case. They didn't necessarily feel optimistic that their commercial speech would be protected in the view of the courts. The outcome of that case is certainly troubling for this one. For those who don't want to protest Adobe on Monday, why don't you go protest Real Networks? Goodness knows they could use it. :-) Streambox VCR is useful in some of the same ways as AEBPR, although there are perhaps more legal uses for AEBPR and more illegal uses for Streambox VCR. They are both proprietary commercial software and many people do argue that there is a free speech right to sell them (as there is a free speech right to sell books!). But it would be more immediately obvious if they were free/open source. Unfortunately, courts already seem to have a hard enough time believing that electronic publication of free/open source software is protected by the first amendment. -- Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Seth David Schoen wrote:
Unfortunately, courts already seem to have a hard enough time believing that electronic publication of free/open source software is protected by the first amendment.
While this is true, there's a very deep issue in the definition of "protected". The problem is better rendered that the courts have taken the view that the protection of (intellectual) *property rights* trumps the free-speech concerns here. There's a very revealing paragraph in the DeCSS decision concerning this: "Thus, even if one accepted defendants' argument that the anti-trafficking prohibition of the DMCA is content based because it regulates only code that "expresses" the programmer's "ideas" for circumventing access control measures, the question would remain whether such code--code designed to circumvent measures controlling access to private or legally protected data--nevertheless could be regulated on the basis of that content. For the reasons set forth in the text, the Court concludes that it may. Alternatively, even if such a categorical or definitional approach were eschewed, the Court would uphold the application of the DMCA now before it on the ground that this record establishes an imminent threat of danger flowing from ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ dissemination of DeCSS that far outweighs the need for unfettered ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ communication of that program. See Landmark Communications, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 842-43 (1978)." -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com http://sethf.com http://www10.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
While this is true, there's a very deep issue in the definition of "protected".
No there isn't, it's just that '...no law...' is onconvenient for people who believe they are angels among men: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The problem is better rendered that the courts have taken the view that the protection of (intellectual) *property rights* trumps the free-speech concerns here.
The problem is that courts believe they can interpret the constitution instead of as actually worded, being limited to laws made 'under' the constutition. A major distinction. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Declan McCullagh wrote:
This state of affairs creates a mild problem (to go back to the recent topic of discussion on cypherpunks) for those who strongly believe in the First Amendment when applied to nonprofit or not-for-profit speech but less so when it comes to speech that's part of a commercial transaction.
Heck, Declan, as far as I recall, you don't believe that the First Amendment applies to people who merely REPEAT (for profit) too many words you originally wrote as speech that's part of a certain commercial transaction (i.e. "copyrighted articles", which you are paid for). In fact, I can't look this up now, but I believe you've posted to the cypherpunks list on this very topic in the past. You want the government to punish people who simply say too many words that you originally said. Isn't that very inconsistent philosophically for you? By the way, as you know, this distinction is enshrined in copyright law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Let's hope Dmitry, a budding capitalist, doesn't fall into that same commercial-speech-can-be-regulated catchall.
But Declan, as a Libertarian proselytizer. how can you justify making your living from a government-granted monopoly which infringes on free speech? Note the above is not necessarily my view. But if you are going to try to use this tragedy to recruit people for silly Libertarian ideology, I think consistency demands you apply the same argument to your articles too. Have you changed your views on this topic since I last saw them discussed? -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com http://sethf.com http://www10.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html
Why bust Dmitry and not the head of ElcomSoft if the primary crime is commercial gain? That he is claimed to be the copyright holder is thin stuff, for that does not support his being the main commercial beneficiary (unless the FBI has evidence that was not revealed about Elcomsoft's internal finances). To be sure some of the officers of ElcomSoft have ties to the KGB and the FBI and the CIA are customers of the firm, as likely are other countries' TLAs. That Dmitry was busted has a stench of scapegoatism, and ElcomSoft may not be altogether innocent, not least for sending Dmitry into the lion's den. Read the statements made by ElcomSoft officers carefully about prior appearances at conferences outside of Russia. Protestations claiming the officers had no idea a bust was in the offing are a bit much. It may well be that the Dmitry bust is a ploy whose purpose will be revealed later as we learn more about cooperation among the globe's law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Would ElcomSoft shop Dmitry for closer ties with USG customers with fat budgets for fighting cybercrime? Perhaps not with initial intent to do so but could very well do so in order to close a deal and better deals to come. Ashcroft's talk about the new cybercrime initiative, and the new incoming FBI director's career advancement due to that cause, seems to point to somebody like Dmitry being busted at about the time he was -- if not him then another Defcon target. Who else was being similarly, is being, investigated will no doubt be announced as the new FBI's chief's approval by Congress works its way through the FBI-credibility-restoration mill.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 01:55:12PM -0700, John Young wrote:
Why bust Dmitry and not the head of ElcomSoft if the primary crime is commercial gain? That he is claimed to be the copyright holder is thin stuff, for that does not support his being the main commercial beneficiary (unless the FBI has evidence that was not revealed about Elcomsoft's internal finances).
The problem with this analysis is that he does not have to be the main commercial beneficiary for the charges to stick. -Declan
Declan:
The problem with this analysis is that he does not have to be the main commercial beneficiary for the charges to stick.
But, to repeat, why the worker and not his bosses? Is this a way for Adobe/FBI/DoJ to signal the interest of its own bosses? And why are the protests limited to Adobe when the FBI and DoJ are doing the dirty work -- well, actually, low-level FBI and DoJ? Oops, that's right, don't fuck with workers-pissed- at-their-bosses who have the guns which they'd like to turn upstairs.
John Young wrote:
But, to repeat, why the worker and not his bosses? Is this a way for Adobe/FBI/DoJ to signal the interest of its own bosses?
Maybe, but the reason to go after the underling is simple: He's far less likely to have the personal resources to do much about it. Cowardly? Sure, but it makes for easier arrests, incarcerations and convictions. Also, it inexpensively meets the criteria of the old Chinese saying, "To frighten a dragon, kill a chicken." S a n d y
At 4:01 PM -0700 7/21/01, John Young wrote:
Declan:
The problem with this analysis is that he does not have to be the main commercial beneficiary for the charges to stick.
But, to repeat, why the worker and not his bosses? Is this a way for Adobe/FBI/DoJ to signal the interest of its own bosses?
And why are the protests limited to Adobe when the FBI and DoJ are doing the dirty work -- well, actually, low-level FBI and DoJ? Oops, that's right, don't fuck with workers-pissed- at-their-bosses who have the guns which they'd like to turn upstairs.
What follows is mostly speculation, as I obviously don't know any of the people involved. When I first heard about the DefCon bust of the Russian, my first question was: "Had there been an arrest warrant issued, or did the Feds simply look at the list of who was presenting papers or had been identified otherwise (hotel register, nametags) and then try to find something to stick them with?" As for why they busted this Russian in Vegas and not the corporation owner who, we now hear, was in Seattle, there are several issues: 1. The above point, that maybe they just looked for someone to bust. 2. High profile. DefCon is a good place to bust an Evil Hacker D00d and get a lot of publicity for the already-scheduled "Cybercrime" shindig in Silicon Valley a few days later. Lots of press coverage, lots of guilt-by-association mileage out of it being the DefCon conference. 3. They probably had no idea the Russian company's owner/manager happened to be in Seattle. (Just speculation...after all, why would the FBI know where a corporate officer was? They guy in Vegas was where the action was.) There's no law against generating an arrest warrant _after_ a suspect is seen to be someplace, but it smacks of various unsavory things to show up a conference and "run the names" so as to look for things they could seek arrest warrants on. As Declan and others have said, this may be the last time a DefCon is held in the U.S. (Not that other countries are necessarily better. Attendees in Canada may face arrest by the Mounties for hate crimes, for violating the Teale-Homulka censorship, for working for a magazine which has broken Canadian laws, etc. And as the Henson case showed, the Canadian SWAT ninjas are perfectly willing to do a "take down" when their bosses to the south order it.) --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 01:47 PM 7/21/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
As Declan and others have said, this may be the last time a DefCon is held in the U.S. (Not that other countries are necessarily better. Attendees in Canada may face arrest by the Mounties for hate crimes, for violating the Teale-Homulka censorship, for working for a magazine which has broken Canadian laws, etc. And as the Henson case showed, the Canadian SWAT ninjas are perfectly willing to do a "take down" when their bosses to the south order it.)
--Tim May
All this argues for anonymously coded projects, etc. But that means you can't get credit for novel research. This is one of the ways that the DCMA is counter to historically unimpeded research & innovation ---Its not rational for profs sans tenure to work without credit. Publish or perish,
At 6:27 PM -0700 7/21/01, David Honig wrote:
At 01:47 PM 7/21/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
As Declan and others have said, this may be the last time a DefCon is held in the U.S. (Not that other countries are necessarily better. Attendees in Canada may face arrest by the Mounties for hate crimes, for violating the Teale-Homulka censorship, for working for a magazine which has broken Canadian laws, etc. And as the Henson case showed, the Canadian SWAT ninjas are perfectly willing to do a "take down" when their bosses to the south order it.)
--Tim May
All this argues for anonymously coded projects, etc. But that means you can't get credit for novel research. This is one of the ways that the DCMA is counter to historically unimpeded research & innovation ---Its not rational for profs sans tenure to work without credit.
DCMA, it seems to me, has always been about "freezing things in place." Large corporations like nothing more than having a powerful central government freeze the status quo. As I have written about several times, large chip companies _say_ they dislike the bureaucratic hoops they are forced to jump through, with OSHA and Labor and Justice and EPA and all the rest. But the fact is that a big chip company can easily hire the floors of people it takes to satisfy the bureaucrats, but a small upstart competitor cannot handle the blizzard of papers. And big companies love it when little competitors are frozen out. The DCMA is just another way to freeze out innovation. Those who try to do nearly any research on copy protection, crypto, locks, software tools face the likelihood that they are violating the DCMA in various ways. Hey, even *I* am in violation of the DCMA. Had the DCMA been in effect in the 1950s, the Xerox Corporation and its execs and engineers probably would have faced charges for producing a "circumvention device" for enabling copyright violators. What, really, is the difference between a Xerox machine and something that allows copies of electronic text? (Both have alternate uses besides pirating. Backups, for example.) --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 06:46 PM 7/21/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Had the DCMA been in effect in the 1950s, the Xerox Corporation and its execs and engineers probably would have faced charges for producing a "circumvention device" for enabling copyright violators. What, really, is the difference between a Xerox machine and something that allows copies of electronic text?
(Both have alternate uses besides pirating. Backups, for example.)
(Had the DCMA existed earlier:) Some publisher would have jailed the dude who noticed a property of selenium films exposed to light and applied it to copying documents. Even if he invented it in a foreign country. Reality is certainly more twisted than fiction.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:46:27PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Had the DCMA been in effect in the 1950s, the Xerox Corporation and its execs and engineers probably would have faced charges for producing a "circumvention device" for enabling copyright violators. What, really, is the difference between a Xerox machine and something that allows copies of electronic text?
(Both have alternate uses besides pirating. Backups, for example.)
I realize Tim is making a general point, and I agree with his overall analysis (it makes sense, how could I not?). But I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment, and argue that the DMCA does not make any distribution/sale of a circumvention device verboten. It makes these three things illegal: `(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; `(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or `(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof. That's broad, and unduly broad, but not as broad as it could be. -Declan
At 10:37 PM -0400 7/21/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:46:27PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Had the DCMA been in effect in the 1950s, the Xerox Corporation and its execs and engineers probably would have faced charges for producing a "circumvention device" for enabling copyright violators. What, really, is the difference between a Xerox machine and something that allows copies of electronic text?
(Both have alternate uses besides pirating. Backups, for example.)
I realize Tim is making a general point, and I agree with his overall analysis (it makes sense, how could I not?).
But I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment, and argue that the DMCA does not make any distribution/sale of a circumvention device verboten. It makes these three things illegal:
Before we get to Declan's three things, let us all recall that the DCMA was cited by those who threatened Prof. Felten and his students and fellow researchers if they merely _presented_ their paper at the IHW. On to Declan's points:
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
Not to beat dead horse, but I think a compelling case could have been made in 1965, for instance, that nearly all uses of Xerox machines in public facilities were for circumventing copyright. At least this is what I saw nearly users doing with the Xerox machines in the libraries near my home and then at college. And of course there is the VCR. The "primarily designed or produced for" use of the Beta and VHS home machines in the late 70s was of course to tape t.v. shows and movies. (The Supremes accepted the unstoppability of the VCR, which had by the time they rendered a decision in Disney v. Sony become so ubiquitous that banning them would have caused a revolt. So the Supremes mumbled about time-shifting and alternate uses. The DCMA would probably not have allowed this "fig leaf"...and would have had the Sony engineers and execs facing jailing on _criminal_, not civil, charges.)
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
One wonders how Prof. Felten's revelation of deep technical flaws in a cryptograhic scheme is construed to violate this clause. Was Felten in business to manufacture devices? Nope. No commercial role. In fact, pure science. (Well, not quite superstring theory, but applied cryptography.)
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
Felten and his co-workers were not "marketing" anything. It would be interesting to take another look at Disney v. Sony under the assumption that the DMCA was in place. The larger picture is of course that the Adobe/FBI bust is intended to have the desired chilling effect. My hunch is that Adobe will lose a small amount of business over this...but that this lost business will nevertheless dwarf the minuscule profits from their "e-books" micromarket. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
Large corporations like nothing more than having a powerful central government freeze the status quo.
And big companies love it when little competitors are frozen out.
The DCMA is just another way to freeze out innovation. Those who try
So much for 'crypto anarchy' and 'anarcho capitalist' creating a better world with less 'coercion'. If they can't do it one way, they'd do it another. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
All this argues for anonymously coded projects, etc. But that means you can't get credit for novel research. This is one of the ways that the DCMA is counter to historically unimpeded research & innovation ---Its not rational for profs sans tenure to work without credit.
Publish or perish,
While it is of little real-world usefulness, it should be noted that such annonymous publication can retain credit towards an individual author by being published under a publicly published yet anonymous public key. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:46 PM 7/21/01 -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
All this argues for anonymously coded projects, etc. But that means you can't get credit for novel research. This is one of the ways that the DCMA is counter to historically unimpeded research & innovation ---Its not rational for profs sans tenure to work without credit.
Publish or perish,
While it is of little real-world usefulness, it should be noted that such annonymous publication can retain credit towards an individual author by being published under a publicly published yet anonymous public key.
That doesn't work when you tell your department that you are the author associated with some (formerly) anonymous key. Yes, it does work in the world of building reputations associated with (anonymous or claimed-not-anonymous) keys, but not when you need meatspace credit --give the meat named "Prof Joe" tenure credit for work X. Cheers,
--
At 08:46 PM 7/21/01 -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:
All this argues for anonymously coded projects, etc. But that means you can't get credit for novel research. This is one of the ways that the DCMA is counter to historically unimpeded research & innovation ---Its not rational for profs sans tenure to work without credit.
Publish or perish,
While it is of little real-world usefulness, it should be noted that such annonymous publication can retain credit towards an individual author by being published under a publicly published yet anonymous public key.
On 21 Jul 2001, at 19:09, David Honig wrote:
That doesn't work when you tell your department that you are the author associated with some (formerly) anonymous key.
Yes, it does work in the world of building reputations associated with (anonymous or claimed-not-anonymous) keys, but not when you need meatspace credit --give the meat named "Prof Joe" tenure credit for work X.
It is common for real world authors to publish under nom de plumes. Adding a key to a nom de plume gives added advantages to the nom de plume. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Eu8MhbQzxLzawwupANxUSdkz5ajpgUlCWGAmgHC6 4z2F9XsFvwx0oHd5o/xto/496sZij2Desy+NOTo42
At 04:44 PM 7/22/01 -0700, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Yes, it does work in the world of building reputations associated with (anonymous or claimed-not-anonymous) keys, but not when you need meatspace credit --give the meat named "Prof Joe" tenure credit for work X.
It is common for real world authors to publish under nom de plumes. Adding a key to a nom de plume gives added advantages to the nom de plume.
A nom de plume which cannot be revealed to the folks one wants credit from (because you go to meatspace jail when the association is leaked) is useless for getting credit in meatspace. Yes the nym gets credit; but it doesn't help you get tenure, or a raise, or invitations to speak.
--
Yes, it does work in the world of building reputations associated with (anonymous or claimed-not-anonymous) keys, but not when you need meatspace credit --give the meat named "Prof Joe" tenure credit for work X.
James A. Donald:
It is common for real world authors to publish under nom de plumes. Adding a key to a nom de plume gives added advantages to the nom de plume.
David Honig wrote:
A nom de plume which cannot be revealed to the folks one wants credit from (because you go to meatspace jail when the association is leaked) is useless for getting credit in meatspace. Yes the nym gets credit; but it doesn't help you get tenure, or a raise, or invitations to speak.
The advantage of a nom de plume is that it can be selectively revealed, revealed to some people and not others, or revealed to everyone at a later date depending on how things turned out. Adding a public key to a nom de plume improves that advantage, The same is true of a nom de guerre, only even more so. To inopportunely reveal a nom de guerre is likely to be fatal. To be unable ot prove a nom de guerre may well result in the loss an personal gains resulting from victory. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mkF3vClVh1ADZdWMKCRDtSJboD5GxB++yr8Wh4f1 4hd66T9IGIrYcT9RAm+JsBR1bEipLxfgpibdVoOpv
At 04:01 PM 7/21/01 -0700, John Young wrote:
And why are the protests limited to Adobe when the FBI and DoJ are doing the dirty work -- well, actually, low-level FBI and DoJ? Oops, that's right, don't fuck with workers-pissed- at-their-bosses who have the guns which they'd like to turn upstairs.
Agreed. In the end, it's not Adobe that's the problem. Many companies like the DMCA and many will use it to seek advantage in the market. Targeting Adobe misses the larger picture. A unanimous Congress enacted it and a grinning President Clinton signed it. They should be the proper targets of protest. -Declan
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 01:55:12PM -0700, John Young wrote:
Why bust Dmitry and not the head of ElcomSoft if the primary crime is commercial gain? That he is claimed to be the copyright holder is thin stuff, for that does not support his being the main commercial beneficiary (unless the FBI has evidence that was not revealed about Elcomsoft's internal finances).
The problem with this analysis is that he does not have to be the main commercial beneficiary for the charges to stick.
The problem is that no 'beneficiary' is required, only 'intent'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 1:55 PM -0700 7/21/01, John Young wrote:
Why bust Dmitry and not the head of ElcomSoft if the
Probably because Dmitry was in the country. Was the Head of ElcomSoft?
It may well be that the Dmitry bust is a ploy whose purpose will be revealed later as we learn more about cooperation among the globe's law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
That's a bet i wouldn't take.
Yes, the head of ElcomSoft and another senior officer were in the US when Dmitry was busted, Alexander Katalov and his brother Vladimir. I spoke to and e-mailed Vladimir a couple of days after the arrest and he was dismayed at being unable to speak to Dmitry and getting the runaround from the Las Vegas authorities. He was apprehensive that the whole ElcomSoft crew in the US would be busted, and didn't know who to turn to for advice. Vladimir was in Portland so I gave him Robb London's lovenest address and phone number.
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 05:50:28PM -0700, John Young wrote:
the runaround from the Las Vegas authorities. He was apprehensive that the whole ElcomSoft crew in the US would be busted, and didn't know who to turn to for advice.
At least this unfortunate situation has changed. EFF has given him office space, and I suspect he as all the legal advice he needs. -Declan
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, John Young wrote:
Why bust Dmitry and not the head of ElcomSoft if the primary crime is commercial gain? That he is claimed to be the copyright holder is thin stuff, for that does not support his being the main commercial beneficiary (unless the FBI has evidence that was not revealed about Elcomsoft's internal finances).
To me, it seems quite consistent with the way the DMCA is crafted and currently applied. If you look at who's likely to present the most trouble with circumvention, it's all the individual coders out there, mostly open source people and recreational hackers, putting together decryption programs for fun/compatibility/fame. If you want to "send a clear signal" to these people, you bust one of their kind, not the head of the corporation.
That Dmitry was busted has a stench of scapegoatism, and ElcomSoft may not be altogether innocent, not least for sending Dmitry into the lion's den.
This would be another reasonable guess, of course. Who knows? Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
At 12:11 PM 7/21/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The interesting thing in this case is that Dmitry was not arrested for discussing or revealing information about Adobe's arguably-sucky copy protection system. If you read the FBI affidavit (http://cryptome.org/usa-v-sklyarov.htm), you'll note that the FBI seems only concerned about his commercial activities:
And the FBI identifies him as the copyright holder. What would they have done if a group[1] was listed after the (C)? [1] registered corporation, anonymous coders, anonymous registered corporation (?) etc.
At 11:09 AM 7/21/01 -0700, David Honig wrote:
And the FBI identifies him as the copyright holder.
What would they have done if a group[1] was listed after the (C)? [1] registered corporation, anonymous coders, anonymous registered corporation (?) etc.
Your guess is as good as mine, and I'll defer to the criminal lawyers here, if there are any. My suspicion: In truly "criminal" enterprises, I suspect they'd go after the officers of the corporation. But in practice "trafficking" is a broad prohibition, and the Feds will arrest anyone involved who sets foot in the U.S. -Declan
Declan:
Your guess is as good as mine, and I'll defer to the criminal lawyers here, if there are any. My suspicion: In truly "criminal" enterprises, I suspect they'd go after the officers of the corporation. But in practice "trafficking" is a broad prohibition, and the Feds will arrest anyone involved who sets foot in the U.S.
But the ElcomSoft officers were not arrested, and it seems they are more responsible for the commercial exploitation of AEBPR than Dmitry. Now their arrest may be in the offing if they have not left the US or underground. Is Dmitry now bait for the ElcomSoft officers?
At 2:42 PM -0400 7/21/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 11:09 AM 7/21/01 -0700, David Honig wrote:
And the FBI identifies him as the copyright holder.
What would they have done if a group[1] was listed after the (C)? [1] registered corporation, anonymous coders, anonymous registered corporation (?) etc.
Your guess is as good as mine, and I'll defer to the criminal lawyers here, if there are any. My suspicion: In truly "criminal" enterprises, I suspect they'd go after the officers of the corporation. But in practice "trafficking" is a broad prohibition, and the Feds will arrest anyone involved who sets foot in the U.S.
Should be quite interesting in a tit-for-tat way when employees of certain U.S. chip companies set foot in, say, Germany. (Pace the Rambus /Infineon case, where charges and countercharges of copyright and patent infringement, even the DCMA, are flying.) --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 12:11 PM -0400 7/21/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
This state of affairs creates a mild problem (to go back to the recent topic of discussion on cypherpunks) for those who strongly believe in the First Amendment when applied to nonprofit or not-for-profit speech but less so when it comes to speech that's part of a commercial transaction.
For instance, a guy ranting on Usenet, they say, should have free speech rights, but the tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies can properly be muzzled. Let's hope Dmitry, a budding capitalist, doesn't fall into that same commercial-speech-can-be-regulated catchall.
There should be no restrictions on the speech of the ranter on Usenet. There should be no restrictions on the speech of a political campaigner. Ergo, both the Republican and Democrat versions of "campaign reform" are slam dunk violations of the First. There should be no restrictions on the speech of a tobacco or pharmaceutical or any other company. Ergo, restrictions on advertising...you all know the drill. The cigarette advertising restrictions of the 1960s were a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Not even the so-called commerce clause of the Constitution gives government the power to stifle the speech of a cigarette seller. Sadly, this and many other restrictions (sometimes bringing in "interstate commerce" in farfetched ways as an excuse) were not challenged. Or the courts refused to face up to the real issues. Now we are in a precarious position of having many forms of speech, many utterances, subject to various laws. We are not very far away from banning actual utterances which are in support of unapproved-of activities. Advertising, advocating illegal substances, hate speech, dislike speech, speech harmful to children and companion animals, the list goes on and on. "You can urge your friends to vote for John McCain in 2004, but if you spend more than the amount that McCain-Feingold says you may spend you are a felon." Free speech is for whisperers, it seems. So much for "Congress shall make no law..." --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 10:39:06PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
An unconstitutional law. A law which limits freedom in a country which is ultimately governed by "Congress shall make no law..."
If you can't catch that clue, there is no hope.
The interesting thing in this case is that Dmitry was not arrested for discussing or revealing information about Adobe's arguably-sucky copy protection system. If you read the FBI affidavit (http://cryptome.org/usa-v-sklyarov.htm), you'll note that the FBI seems only concerned about his commercial activities:
[ ... ]
That's because the DMCA only makes commercial circumvention a crime:
(a) In general. -- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain,
Wrong. See that phrase 'private financial gain'? That means that any(!!!) activity, private or commercial, which reduces the cash flow INTO the corporation is a legitimate target. So simply talking about it is most definitely a crime. So, while in this case they may not have decided to go this route, the route is still there. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 8:23 PM -0400 7/20/01, GeEk wrote:
Just wondering (because maybe you don't live in the US). But why are you all gonna protest because some Russian got arrested for breaking the law?? \
Probably because he got arrested on American Soil, by American Cops for breaking an American law while living and working in Russia. It also happens to be a law that many disagree with. Clear things up for you? (note, trimmed the CC line)
participants (17)
-
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
GeEk -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate
-
John Young -
Len Sassaman -
measl＠mfn.org -
Petro -
Petro -
Sampo Syreeni -
Sandy Sandfort -
Seth David Schoen -
Seth Finkelstein -
Tim May