In light of recent "situations" involving cpunks and the courts, I've been thinking about the 5th Amendment. I pose two questions: If called to testify in a criminal case, and asked the question "Are you known by any other names" (or a derivative of that question), could one plead the fifth in order to prevent the disclosure of a pseudonym? If asked the question "have you ever communicated with [third party]", could one plead the fifth if that communication was made through a pseudonym, and tying that pseudonym to oneself could potentially be incriminating?
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Anonymous wrote: You may invoke the 5th for *any* question that *may* tend to incriminate you, in *any* way. Certainly these hypotheticals apply. What scares me is the use of "involuntary immunizations" by persecuters to get around the invocation...
I pose two questions: > If called to testify in a criminal case, and asked the question "Are you known by any other names" (or a derivative of that question), could one plead the fifth in order to prevent the disclosure of a pseudonym?
If asked the question "have you ever communicated with [third party]", could one plead the fifth if that communication was made through a pseudonym, and tying that pseudonym to oneself could potentially be incriminating?
-- 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... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Anonymous wrote:
You may invoke the 5th for *any* question that *may* tend to incriminate you, in *any* way. Certainly these hypotheticals apply. What scares me is the use of "involuntary immunizations" by persecuters to get around the invocation...
Actually you may invoke the 5th for anything that isn't in your best interest (ie witness against himself). The 'incrimination' crap is just that, a twist on the 'in any criminal case' (the 'any' is the key point). It's also worth noting there are NO exceptions to this, nowhere in the Constitution is forced acceptance of immunity for example permitted. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ____________________________________________________________________ Beware gentle knight, there is no greater monster than reason. Miguel de Cervantes The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:29 PM 4/4/01 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
In light of recent "situations" involving cpunks and the courts, I've been thinking about the 5th Amendment.
I pose two questions:
If called to testify in a criminal case, and asked the question "Are you known by any other names" (or a derivative of that question), could one plead the fifth in order to prevent the disclosure of a pseudonym?
If asked the question "have you ever communicated with [third party]", could one plead the fifth if that communication was made through a pseudonym, and tying that pseudonym to oneself could potentially be incriminating?
Indeed the 5th is up to you to decide ---after all, only you know what you've done. You can only be forced to talk to a GJ if given immunity for anything you say, by arrangement beforehand; I think this came up during Monicagate. JY or DM could easily take the 5th if they so chose. How would anyone (including themselves or their council) prove to them that any answer associating them with JB would not be incriminating in the next wave? An interesting twist against compelled key disclosure is making your passphrase something incriminating.
At 3:19 PM -0700 4/4/01, David Honig wrote:
At 10:29 PM 4/4/01 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
...
If asked the question "have you ever communicated with [third party]", could one plead the fifth if that communication was made through a pseudonym, and tying that pseudonym to oneself could potentially be incriminating?
Indeed the 5th is up to you to decide ---after all, only you know what you've done. You can only be forced to talk to a GJ if given immunity for anything you say, by arrangement beforehand; I think this came up during Monicagate. JY or DM could easily take the 5th if they so chose.
How would anyone (including themselves or their council) prove to them that any answer associating them with JB would not be incriminating in the next wave?
Inasmuch as I think the Feds are trying to put together a RICO case for Cypherpunks being some kind of "continuing criminal conspiracy," it would seem that _any_ testimony before a GJ, whether about past membership, current membership, contacts with others, authorship of articles, etc. could constitute "self incrimination" for the impending Federal case. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the notorious and infamous organization known as "the Cypherpunks"?" Unless given use immunity (as I understand the legal jargon, given that IANAL), anything admitted to is fodder for the Main Case, yet to come. --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 Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:51:54PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Inasmuch as I think the Feds are trying to put together a RICO case for Cypherpunks being some kind of "continuing criminal conspiracy,"
So which of y'all do I write about next? (Just a joke, folks, just a joke. I have no information beyond what's been posted publicly and I heard in court this week.) -Declan
Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:51:54PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Inasmuch as I think the Feds are trying to put together a RICO case for Cypherpunks being some kind of "continuing criminal conspiracy,"
So which of y'all do I write about next?
(Just a joke, folks, just a joke. I have no information beyond what's been posted publicly and I heard in court this week.)
-Declan
Jim Choate would be a good candidate for you to write an article about. :) -- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
I don't do interviews. I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to post excerpts. I believe ~200 lines is the maximum allowed under current copyright law. Here's the real test to see if you really do respect 'private property'. On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Sunder wrote:
Jim Choate would be a good candidate for you to write an article about.
____________________________________________________________________ We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority. D.H. Lawrence The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly), he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate. -Declan On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 06:02:48PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
I don't do interviews.
I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to post excerpts. I believe ~200 lines is the maximum allowed under current copyright law.
Here's the real test to see if you really do respect 'private property'.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Sunder wrote:
Jim Choate would be a good candidate for you to write an article about.
____________________________________________________________________
We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority.
D.H. Lawrence
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly), he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate.
Really? Go back to the archives and look at my original attempt to set a policy that SSZ subscribers posts were 'public domain'. It was immediately after Igor and I put up the original two-site CDR. Note who was arguing in the contrary. No, there is no 'implied consent'. I own SSZ. I own the copyright of my words. There is no 'meeting of minds' between you and I for example, so there can be no 'contract', implied or otherwise (since I've said publicly I won't agree). There is no fine print that states 'we reserve the right to edit all submissions'. Go fuck off god-$ fascist. ____________________________________________________________________ We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority. D.H. Lawrence The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Amusing. So if I have a cpunx archive, I can't place ads on it? I welcome your flurry of lawsuits. We already know about your lawyers on retainer. Perhaps you can forward them come constitutional amendments. -Declan On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:13:52PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly), he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate.
Really?
Go back to the archives and look at my original attempt to set a policy that SSZ subscribers posts were 'public domain'. It was immediately after Igor and I put up the original two-site CDR.
Note who was arguing in the contrary.
No, there is no 'implied consent'. I own SSZ. I own the copyright of my words. There is no 'meeting of minds' between you and I for example, so there can be no 'contract', implied or otherwise (since I've said publicly I won't agree).
There is no fine print that states 'we reserve the right to edit all submissions'.
Go fuck off god-$ fascist.
____________________________________________________________________
We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority. D.H. Lawrence
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Amusing. So if I have a cpunx archive, I can't place ads on it?
Sure you can. What you can't do is refuse to remove an item by its author. And if you do make money on it they can sue for recovery of damages. Like a said, a good test for ones concept of 'respect private property'... God-$ Fascist. ____________________________________________________________________ We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority. D.H. Lawrence The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Private property != intellecutal property. If anything, my "private property" claim is stronger than your IP one, since the bits are on MY server. :) -Declan On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:41:47PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Amusing. So if I have a cpunx archive, I can't place ads on it?
Sure you can. What you can't do is refuse to remove an item by its author. And if you do make money on it they can sue for recovery of damages.
Like a said, a good test for ones concept of 'respect private property'...
God-$ Fascist.
____________________________________________________________________
We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority. D.H. Lawrence
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Private property != intellecutal property. If anything, my "private property" claim is stronger than your IP one, since the bits are on MY server. :)
Then Napster should have no problem since 'possession' is 9/10's of the law... ____________________________________________________________________ We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority. D.H. Lawrence The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
You would have a valid point if the Beasty Boys were in the habit of sending MP3s of their latest hits to cypherpunks. -Declan On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:33:37AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Private property != intellecutal property. If anything, my "private property" claim is stronger than your IP one, since the bits are on MY server. :)
Then Napster should have no problem since 'possession' is 9/10's of the law...
____________________________________________________________________
We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority. D.H. Lawrence
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
You would have a valid point if the Beasty Boys were in the habit of sending MP3s of their latest hits to cypherpunks.
What the hell does 'cypherpunks' have to do with it? Come on, spell it out... 'implied consent'? Where? Who says? You? You don't speak for me, and I certainly never gave consent, implied or otherwise, and I operate one of the nodes. If anyone has a 'right' to decide what the policies are or aren't it's the people operating the nodes. Not the users. No, there is no 'implied' anything. Certainly nothing that can be construed to mean that every piece of material sent to this list is in the public domain. Your claim is equivalent to saying if somebody comes and talks about their technology at one of the physical meet they are 'implicitly' giving permission to use. Not. Simply because a discussion is 'public' doesn't make it 'public domain'. ____________________________________________________________________ We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority. D.H. Lawrence The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
So do you fill out a form and send 30$ to the library of congress Every time you send an e-mail Jim ? You don't even have a "(C) 2001 Jim Choate" in your sig. Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com> To: "Jim Choate" <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> Cc: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:28 AM Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Pleading the 5th
You would have a valid point if the Beasty Boys were in the habit of sending MP3s of their latest hits to cypherpunks.
-Declan
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:33:37AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Private property != intellecutal property. If anything, my "private property" claim is stronger than your IP one, since the bits are on MY server. :)
Then Napster should have no problem since 'possession' is 9/10's of the law...
____________________________________________________________________
We have to hate our immediate predecessors to get free of their authority. D.H. Lawrence
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this hilarious coming from Declan, who once (WAAY back in 1997) closed one one of his previously open-subscription mailing lists because people were *gasp* forwarding messages from it to other lists. His list policy was, if I recall, "you own your words, no retransmission without your permission" and he was outraged that some of his subscribers, specifically Hettinga, did not respect these vital intellectual property rights. Now when somebody else makes the same silly assertion he was making, he calls it silly. I guess we all grow up eventually.... -- Daniel Declan wrote:
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly), he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate.
in response to Choate's:
I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to post excerpts. I believe ~200 lines is the maximum allowed under current copyright law.
Cute, but inaccurate. I never have questioned the ability of list owners to set their own list policies (I am a member of a number of mailing lists with do-not-forward policies). Cypherpunks, on the other hand, is just a little different than a private, invite-only mailing list that's run by one person for a specific purpose on one server. -Declan On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 09:40:26AM -0800, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
I find this hilarious coming from Declan, who once (WAAY back in 1997) closed one one of his previously open-subscription mailing lists because people were *gasp* forwarding messages from it to other lists. His list policy was, if I recall, "you own your words, no retransmission without your permission" and he was outraged that some of his subscribers, specifically Hettinga, did not respect these vital intellectual property rights.
Now when somebody else makes the same silly assertion he was making, he calls it silly. I guess we all grow up eventually....
-- Daniel
Declan wrote:
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly), he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate.
in response to Choate's:
I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to post excerpts. I believe ~200 lines is the maximum allowed under current copyright law.
Cute, but inaccurate. I never have questioned the ability of list owners to set their own list policies (I am a member of a number of mailing lists with do-not-forward policies).
Cypherpunks, on the other hand, is just a little different than a private, invite-only mailing list that's run by one person for a specific purpose on one server.
-Declan
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 09:40:26AM -0800, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
I find this hilarious coming from Declan, who once (WAAY back in 1997) closed one one of his previously open-subscription mailing lists because people were *gasp* forwarding messages from it to other lists. His list policy was, if I recall, "you own your words, no retransmission without your permission" and he was outraged that some of his subscribers, specifically Hettinga, did not respect these vital intellectual property rights.
Now when somebody else makes the same silly assertion he was making, he calls it silly. I guess we all grow up eventually....
-- Daniel
Declan wrote:
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly), he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate.
in response to Choate's:
I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to
Inaccurate indeed. List owner policies have nothing to do with it. Jim's assertion, your mockery of it, and my mockery of your similar assertion back in 1997 all had to do with intellectual property rights, not list owner policies. I am looking forward to hearing you explain that the assertion "you own your words" is not an assertion about intellectual property rights. But I'm not holding my breath.... -- Daniel ----- Original Message ----- From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: Daniel J. Boone <djb@gci.net> Cc: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:19 PM Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Pleading the 5th post
excerpts. I believe ~200 lines is the maximum allowed under current copyright law.
The question is who establishes the rules that govern IP rights -- i.e. list owner policies. -Declan On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 09:20:08AM -0800, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
Inaccurate indeed. List owner policies have nothing to do with it. Jim's assertion, your mockery of it, and my mockery of your similar assertion back in 1997 all had to do with intellectual property rights, not list owner policies.
I am looking forward to hearing you explain that the assertion "you own your words" is not an assertion about intellectual property rights. But I'm not holding my breath....
-- Daniel
----- Original Message ----- From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: Daniel J. Boone <djb@gci.net> Cc: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Pleading the 5th
Cute, but inaccurate. I never have questioned the ability of list owners to set their own list policies (I am a member of a number of mailing lists with do-not-forward policies).
Cypherpunks, on the other hand, is just a little different than a private, invite-only mailing list that's run by one person for a specific purpose on one server.
-Declan
I find this hilarious coming from Declan, who once (WAAY back in 1997) closed one one of his previously open-subscription mailing lists because people were *gasp* forwarding messages from it to other lists. His list policy was, if I recall, "you own your words, no retransmission without your permission" and he was outraged that some of his subscribers, specifically Hettinga, did not respect these vital intellectual property rights.
Now when somebody else makes the same silly assertion he was making, he calls it silly. I guess we all grow up eventually....
-- Daniel
Declan wrote:
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly), he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate.
in response to Choate's:
I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 09:40:26AM -0800, Daniel J. Boone wrote: post
excerpts. I believe ~200 lines is the maximum allowed under current copyright law.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The question is who establishes the rules that govern IP rights -- i.e. list owner policies.
Finaly, Declan finds it within his magnanimous soul to admit defeat. There are three contributing factors to government of IP anywhere. 1. Law, which states it's copyrighted by default as you create the work. Hence 'copyright'. 2. The list owners, none of whom require any sort of IP transfer to participate. If there were such terms the transfer would be according to those terms and not 'economic need/desire' by some third party (eg somebody wanting to use the text commercialy). They would most likely need to get yet another IP transfer done with the list owner. 3. The subscribers voluntary acceptance of the above two when they subscribe and continue to participate (even by lurking). Consequence: The archives would be on shaky ground if pushed legally to remove a given piece of material. Anyone who were to say take the Cypherpunks archive and publish it would legally be limited to the 'fair use' clauses currently in application in their jurisdiction and anywhere their published work was distributed (excluding used bookstores, gifts, etc. which could make this last point really, really squishy). Hence, I own my words - you own your words. If somebody wants to use 'em outside of 'fair use' they gotta get your permission. As far as I'm concerned as long as no money is being made off it I'm fine, if money is to be had then 'NO'. I don't even want to talk about a 'cut'. 'NO'. A very handy test of 'respect for private property'. ____________________________________________________________________ To speak algebraically, Mr. M. is execrable, but Mr. G. is (x+1)-ecrable. Edgar Allan Poe The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:29 AM -0800 4/11/01, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary notwithstanding.
So you're saying that it is impossible to set up a list (or a publisher, same difference) where the rights to a work are transferred to (purchased by, whatever) the list or the publisher. So much for "All works become the sole property of ZYZ Corporation upon submission and acceptance." Property may be transferred. Intellectual property is property. It's all in the contract. --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
I wrote:
List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary notwithstanding.
and Tim May responded:
So you're saying that it is impossible to set up a list (or a publisher, same difference) where the rights to a work are transferred to (purchased by, whatever) the list or the publisher.
No, I'm not saying that, or anything about publishers, nor indeed am I making any claim about what sorts of lists might be created in the future. I am making a legal/factual claim about every mailing list I am aware of to date, specifically including this one and the one Declan got all snippy about back in 1997 when Hettinga started forwarding posts from it. To make my claim more precise, I should have said "list owners...cannot UNILATERALLY affect, the intellectual property rights of list contributors."
So much for "All works become the sole property of ZYZ Corporation upon submission and acceptance."
Indeed. So much for that. And good riddance. Saying something does not make it so. ZYX Corporation is notorious for plastering gratuitious self-serving printed notices all over every painted surface, and tattooing "Authorized Personnel Only" on the asses of its employees too. I get so tired of mindless legal incantation. Too many lawyers think they are sorcerers and need only recite powerful-sounding phrases repeatedly in order to achieve desired results. Sorry, this mini-rant is not directed at you, but has been brought to you by the legal departments of America's most respected corporations.
Property may be transferred. Intellectual property is property. It's all in the contract.
Right. But it's not DECLAN's property unless he wrote it. And nothing he says about whose it is affects whose it is, I don't care how many mailing lists he "owns". Contracts are not created by unilateral utterance. The "owner" of a list can spout nonsense until he's blue in the face, but his nonsense doesn't affect the rest of us unless we agree to it in some quite formal ways. -- Daniel J. Boone
Yip, yip, yip, Yahoo!!!!! On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
I wrote:
List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary notwithstanding.
and Tim May responded:
So you're saying that it is impossible to set up a list (or a publisher, same difference) where the rights to a work are transferred to (purchased by, whatever) the list or the publisher.
No, I'm not saying that, or anything about publishers, nor indeed am I making any claim about what sorts of lists might be created in the future. I am making a legal/factual claim about every mailing list I am aware of to date, specifically including this one and the one Declan got all snippy about back in 1997 when Hettinga started forwarding posts from it.
To make my claim more precise, I should have said "list owners...cannot UNILATERALLY affect, the intellectual property rights of list contributors."
So much for "All works become the sole property of ZYZ Corporation upon submission and acceptance."
Indeed. So much for that. And good riddance. Saying something does not make it so. ZYX Corporation is notorious for plastering gratuitious self-serving printed notices all over every painted surface, and tattooing "Authorized Personnel Only" on the asses of its employees too. I get so tired of mindless legal incantation. Too many lawyers think they are sorcerers and need only recite powerful-sounding phrases repeatedly in order to achieve desired results. Sorry, this mini-rant is not directed at you, but has been brought to you by the legal departments of America's most respected corporations.
Property may be transferred. Intellectual property is property. It's all in the contract.
Right. But it's not DECLAN's property unless he wrote it. And nothing he says about whose it is affects whose it is, I don't care how many mailing lists he "owns". Contracts are not created by unilateral utterance.
The "owner" of a list can spout nonsense until he's blue in the face, but his nonsense doesn't affect the rest of us unless we agree to it in some quite formal ways.
-- Daniel J. Boone
Tim's point is on-target. Read up on freedom to contract. See also examples like Yahoo-Geocities a few years back, claiming IP rights in posts to its site (then abandoned, but that was due to PR outcry, not to lack of enforceable contract). -Declan On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 10:29:03AM -0800, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary notwithstanding.
-- Daniel
The question is who establishes the rules that govern IP rights -- i.e. list owner policies.
-Declan
Declan wrote:
Tim's point is on-target. Read up on freedom to contract.
Been there, done that, have the law degree on my wall to prove it. My views on contract law could conceivably be incorrect, but they are not uninformed.
See also examples like Yahoo-Geocities a few years back, claiming IP rights in posts to its site (then abandoned, but that was due to PR outcry, not to lack of enforceable contract).
How do you know? It was never litigated. I have an opinion on what the outcome of that litigation would have been, but I can't prove my view any more than you can prove yours. By the way, thanks for the good reporting on the Bell trial. I have found it a fascinating if dismaying read, and I appreciate the effort you've put into it. -- Daniel
At 04:52 PM 4/11/01 -0800, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
Declan wrote:
Tim's point is on-target. Read up on freedom to contract.
Been there, done that, have the law degree on my wall to prove it. My views on contract law could conceivably be incorrect, but they are not uninformed.
Dan, You're not the only lawyer with unusual views of what freedom to contract means. I argued with two law profs over coffee yesterday about just this. By the way, thanks for the good reporting on the Bell trial. I have found it a
fascinating if dismaying read, and I appreciate the effort you've put into it.
Thanks. -Declan
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Actually they can if there is a contract that requires it and you as a IP owner sign it. For example, what I had originaly intended to do with the SSZ node was to 'authenticate' each submission. That means the software sends it to the list owner for verification. At that point a contract between myself and each subscriber would have specifically, and individualy, converted each submission to SSZ to public domain. It would have used digital signatures for post authentication of the contract if there were a disagreement at a later time. Currently you are correct, there are no stipulations of transfer of IP related to participating in the CDR. I now believe that is the best policy. ____________________________________________________________________ To speak algebraically, Mr. M. is execrable, but Mr. G. is (x+1)-ecrable. Edgar Allan Poe The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 04:09:50PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Actually they can if there is a contract that requires it and you as a IP owner sign it. ...
In the real world, you don't even need to sign. Sending a letter to a newspaper or calling a radio station often implicitly gives permission to redistribute it in any form. (Ownership might still be an issue, but IP rights go to the paper or radio station). Newspapers have letter guidelines; radio stations might have periodic announcements about their use of recorded calls or an announcement on their phone line. These are enough. The cyber-equivalent would be some sort of standard policy that's sent to people when they subscribe or is otherwise available to subscribers and periodically publicized. -- Greg
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Greg Newby wrote:
In the real world, you don't even need to sign. Sending a letter to a newspaper or calling a radio station often implicitly gives permission to redistribute it in any form. (Ownership might still be an issue, but IP rights go to the paper or radio station).
Newspapers have letter guidelines; radio stations might have periodic announcements about their use of recorded calls or an announcement on their phone line. These are enough.
That's a contract, a 'meeting of minds'. Where is such commentary on ANY cpunks node???? Your point is moot. ____________________________________________________________________ To speak algebraically, Mr. M. is execrable, but Mr. G. is (x+1)-ecrable. Edgar Allan Poe The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
From the "I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for this, but" files.
I believe Jim is correct that any postings he makes are protected by copyright law. Remember that copyright law protects several rights of the author of works, includind that of distribution. In effect Jim is saying that what he posts here is posted here by his own hand, and "here" being a group of mailers that automatically distributes his works, the archivers, filters, usenet, and other forwarders, etc, but he claims that it is not okay for these works to be printed in newspapers, magazines, or on their web sites without his consent. Yes, it is a silly view, but I don't think there is anything in copyright law that would deny him the right of deciding what the distribution is. While he can't really enforce what people do with the emails that they receive from him, if he sees his posts printed in full in the next issue of WIRED, he could sue. Declan McCullagh wrote:
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly), he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate.
-Declan
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 06:02:48PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
I don't do interviews.
I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to post excerpts. I believe ~200 lines is the maximum allowed under current copyright law.
-- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
Choate has given an implied consent for his posts to be redistributed in certain ways. Much as Usenet participants do. He has probably not given consent for all of his posts to be combined and sold by Wired as a book (of course this is just a hypothetical, nobody would buy it). Choate, however, would have a very weak case if I was to reproduce one of his posts in a Wired article. Copyright law, as the lawyers can attest, includes many factors a court would weigh, and he'd almost certainly lose. So be careful before agreeing with our resident tentacle. -Declan On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 02:21:27PM -0400, Sunder wrote:
From the "I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for this, but" files.
I believe Jim is correct that any postings he makes are protected by copyright law. Remember that copyright law protects several rights of the author of works, includind that of distribution.
In effect Jim is saying that what he posts here is posted here by his own hand, and "here" being a group of mailers that automatically distributes his works, the archivers, filters, usenet, and other forwarders, etc, but he claims that it is not okay for these works to be printed in newspapers, magazines, or on their web sites without his consent.
Yes, it is a silly view, but I don't think there is anything in copyright law that would deny him the right of deciding what the distribution is.
While he can't really enforce what people do with the emails that they receive from him, if he sees his posts printed in full in the next issue of WIRED, he could sue.
Declan McCullagh wrote:
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly), he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate.
-Declan
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 06:02:48PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
I don't do interviews.
I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to post excerpts. I believe ~200 lines is the maximum allowed under current copyright law.
-- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Choate has given an implied consent for his posts to be redistributed in certain ways.
How? Saying it over and over like a Buddhist mantra won't make it so.
Much as Usenet participants do.
A privately run mailing list is not equivalent to USENET where there is no subcription or other 'access' process. The same can't be said about a mailing list where one must 'subscribe' using a valid email address for receipt. Access to USENET does not require any special action on the part of the reader or poster.
He has probably not given consent for all of his posts to be combined and sold by Wired as a book (of course this is just a hypothetical, nobody would buy it).
No, I haven't. In fact nobody on this list has, implied or otherwise.
Choate, however, would have a very weak case if I was to reproduce one of his posts in a Wired article. Copyright law, as the lawyers can attest, includes many factors a court would weigh, and he'd almost certainly lose.
Actually under current law, if the article included more than about 200 lines of my posts then I'd have a very strong case. ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Sunder wrote:
forwarders, etc, but he claims that it is not okay for these works to be printed in newspapers, magazines, or on their web sites without his consent.
Bullshit, I am not. I am saying that if you want to print them in such places you can't print them outside of the 'fair use' clauses. Under current law that is limited to about 200 lines total in any one work. If you want to print several of them, or all of them, then you DO need my permission. As usual, you couldn't get the point right if it was on top of your head. ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Jim, let's test your tortured interpretation of the law. I'll take one of your posts that's 201 lines long and post it on my website, properly attributed. You sue me, and we'll watch what happens. Ready? -Declan On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:42:16PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Sunder wrote:
forwarders, etc, but he claims that it is not okay for these works to be printed in newspapers, magazines, or on their web sites without his consent.
Bullshit, I am not.
I am saying that if you want to print them in such places you can't print them outside of the 'fair use' clauses. Under current law that is limited to about 200 lines total in any one work.
If you want to print several of them, or all of them, then you DO need my permission.
As usual, you couldn't get the point right if it was on top of your head.
____________________________________________________________________
The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone.
James Madison
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Okay, Jim, let's test your tortured interpretation of the law.
I'll take one of your posts that's 201 lines long and post it on my website, properly attributed. You sue me, and we'll watch what happens. Ready?
I never said I had intent to sue anyone. I only said that I would not, and don't, intend to give commercial permission for the reproduction of my words. And I specifically used you as an example. I also asserted that no such permission is given by participating in the CDR, implicitly or explicity. Contrary to your assertion. Having you hop around like a frog on a hot plate is quite entertaining enough in its own way. Thank you for the free advertising. ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh. This reminds me of the old adage: Never get involved in an argument with the insane. You're not going to win, and it's not that much fun to watch Choate froth at the mouth. There are two issues here: Implied consent, and fair use. That Choate can't, or refuses to, understand them speaks for itself. -Declan On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 07:56:37PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Okay, Jim, let's test your tortured interpretation of the law.
I'll take one of your posts that's 201 lines long and post it on my website, properly attributed. You sue me, and we'll watch what happens. Ready?
I never said I had intent to sue anyone. I only said that I would not, and don't, intend to give commercial permission for the reproduction of my words. And I specifically used you as an example. I also asserted that no such permission is given by participating in the CDR, implicitly or explicity. Contrary to your assertion.
Having you hop around like a frog on a hot plate is quite entertaining enough in its own way.
Thank you for the free advertising.
____________________________________________________________________
The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone.
James Madison
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Sigh. This reminds me of the old adage: Never get involved in an argument with the insane. You're not going to win, and it's not that much fun to watch Choate froth at the mouth.
There are two issues here: Implied consent, and fair use. That Choate can't, or refuses to, understand them speaks for itself.
What I cannot understand is that he expects people, many of whom are self-proclaimed Anarchists and Troublemakers, to obey copyright law. "The problem with Anarchy is that there are too many rules. You have to hate the Government, show up at the meetings, pay your dues, and subscribe to the news letter." alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
What I cannot understand is that he expects people, many of whom are self-proclaimed Anarchists and Troublemakers, to obey copyright law.
I haven't said word one about 'what I expect other people to do' (anarchist, troubelmakers, Baptists, or not). As a matter of fact, I haven't even stated what I personaly believe to be the 'right thing to do'. The only statement of personal intent that I've made in this entire discussion is that I don't intend to give permission for commercial use of any cypherpunks material that I hold ownership of. You should talk to Declan, with your ability to misrepresent and misquote you're a natural for a job in the 'press'. ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe that's what you meant to have said. But you don't seem to have a clue about your ability to force, say, news organizations to bend to your view of what's "commercial use" of a cypherpunks posting. We tend to view it sas "fair use." -Declan Who has a job in the 'press' On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:13:35AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
The only statement of personal intent that I've made in this entire discussion is that I don't intend to give permission for commercial use of any cypherpunks material that I hold ownership of.
You should talk to Declan, with your ability to misrepresent and misquote you're a natural for a job in the 'press'.
____________________________________________________________________
The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone.
James Madison
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Sigh. This reminds me of the old adage: Never get involved in an argument with the insane. You're not going to win, and it's not that much fun to watch Choate froth at the mouth.
There are two issues here: Implied consent, and fair use. That Choate can't, or refuses to, understand them speaks for itself.
Yep, let's bitch about how stupid I am and how I don't get it. And at the same time hope nobody notices you're doing nothing but waving your hands. Your forte is clearly the ad hominim. There is no implied consent with respect to removing copyright from the author of any traffic throug the CDR. Simply joining this list, or any other, doesn't remove copyright. It doesn't IMPLY anything outside of resticted permission of the subscribers to use personaly (not commercialy mind you) as PARTICIPANTS IN THAT PARTICULAR FORUM. There is no 'implied stripping of rights' in the copyright law or any of its applications. 'fair use' will certainly provide some relief for use of this material outside of the forum it was submitted to. However, that still does not strip rights or allow you for example to put your name on something as your work (which is perfectly allowable under public domain) or to use it in a commercial venture of any kind without permission. If you don't get that permission a priori then you open yourself up to relief for the copyright holder under the copyright laws. ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:08:57AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
Yep, let's bitch about how stupid I am and how I don't get it. And at the same time hope nobody notices you're doing nothing but waving your hands. Your forte is clearly the ad hominim.
Hardly. But let's assume arguendo that you actually *are* insane, or a bit Bellsian, perhaps, on a bad day. You'd have to reluctantly agree that under that hypothetical, it doesn't make sense to argue with a Choate. :)
There is no implied consent with respect to removing copyright from the author of any traffic throug the CDR.
I never claimed there was. -Declan
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:08:57AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
Yep, let's bitch about how stupid I am and how I don't get it. And at the same time hope nobody notices you're doing nothing but waving your hands. Your forte is clearly the ad hominim.
Hardly. But let's assume arguendo that you actually *are* insane, or a bit Bellsian, perhaps, on a bad day. You'd have to reluctantly agree that under that hypothetical, it doesn't make sense to argue with a Choate. :
If you intend to argue you need two things you consistently lack, a point a line of reasoning backing it up.
There is no implied consent with respect to removing copyright from the author of any traffic throug the CDR.
I never claimed there was.
Yes, you did. You specificaly said that posts through the CDR were implicitly usable for commercial use (ie your using them in a article) without permission or other contact to the author. You also compared it to USENET with some hair brain claim that USENET posts were public domain. So far, all you've done is repeat it over and over. No point, no line of reasoning. ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:45:03PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
Yes, you did. You specificaly said that posts through the CDR were implicitly usable for commercial use (ie your using them in a article) without permission or other contact to the author. You also compared it to
No, I said there was some implicit license to redistribute and republish as online archives, etc. I didn't say (and don't think) that license should extend to -- the example I gave -- publishing the posts in book form. The point you fail to grasp is that journalists have fairly broad leeway to make fair use of posts here, whether you like it or not. -Declan
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
No, I said there was some implicit license to redistribute and republish as online archives, etc. I didn't say (and don't think) that license should extend to -- the example I gave -- publishing the posts in book form.
The point you fail to grasp is that journalists have fairly broad leeway to make fair use of posts here, whether you like it or not.
A post or two yes, you can use under 'fair use', you can't just take posts willy nilly as you see fit and re-distribute them as you see fit. You couldn't take a dozen of them in toto and use them without permission legally. Go back to the Apr. 12 arguments on this point and you'll see the suttle shift on Declan's position from 'all posts have implied consent' to 'the press can use them in an article'. You'll also note that he slipped right by the post I sent in responce to his 'USENET' claim about 'implied copyright limitations', they don't exist. You'll also find a post where he admits that were there any 'implied consent' it would fall to the list operators (of which I am one and he is none) and not newspapers or other 'organizations'. He's a slippery little beggar who'll lie, cheat, steal, and twist whatever it takes to keep from going 'Oh, I guess I could have had a V8'. (that's fair use under parody in case you don't understand the concept Declan) ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (13)
-
Alan Olsen -
Anonymous -
Daniel J. Boone -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Greg Newby -
J.A. Terranson -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate
-
Neil Johnson -
Sunder -
Tim May