From: Filter Editor
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 17/12/03 23:14
Subject: The Filter, No. 6.2
No. 6.2 <--The Filter--> 12.17.03
Your regular dose of public-interest Internet news and commentary
from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
H a r v a r d L a w S c h o o l
CONTENTS: HIGHLIGHTS:
[1] In the News: I Don't Like Spam!
[2] Dispatches: You Are the President
[3] Berkman News: ILaw Returns to Cambridge
[4] Conference Watch
[5] Bookmarks: Keep Me Posted
[6] Quotables: The Weather Outside Is Frightful
[7] Talk Back
[8] Subscription Info
[9] About us
[10] Not a Copyright
-----------------------------------------
[1] IN THE NEWS
================
* Diebold Folds!
The stage was set for a Digital Millennium Copyright Act showdown: on
one side was Diebold, Inc. - a 145-year-old company and the
country's leading manufacturer of electronic voting machines. On the
other was the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - a nonprofit
coalition of attorneys and volunteers - defending an ISP and two
Swarthmore students.
The face-off hinged on 13,000 memos that had been hacked from
Diebold's servers in March, 2003. This fall, the memos had been
circulated to WiredNews and were beginning to circulate among weblog
writers. In particular, two Swarthmore students posted the memos,
which revealed problems with Diebold operations ranging from egregious
security holes in their software to intentional non-compliance with
election regulations.
Diebold responded to the posting of the emails by sending
cease-and-desist letters to Swarthmore College, claiming that Diebold
had proprietary ownership of the memos and that posting them was a
violation of copyright laws. EFF filed for a declaratory judgment
against Diebold to block the company's cease-and-desist letters,
which, according to EFF, had a chilling effect on constitutionally
protected political speech.
The two sides met in court on November 14, but before the judge was
able to issue a decision, Diebold announced that it was dropping its
lawsuit against the students and that it would not send any more DMCA
notices about the memos. The decision was a victory for EFF, but
Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer isn't entirely satisfied: "We'd still
like to have a judge saying that a posting like this is 'fair
use,'" Seltzer explains. At least for the meantime, it's Bloggers:
1, Diebold: 0.
Berkman Center briefing on the controversy:
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/briefings/diebold.html>
WiredNews coverage:
<http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61243,00.html?tw=wn_polihead_6>
Diebold's retraction:
<https://www.eff.org/Legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20031201_order.pd
f>
Participants' commentary and other good links:
<http://www.house.gov/kucinich/issues/voting.htm> (Congressman
Kucinich, D-OH, also posted the memos)
<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2003/11/25#a476>
<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/12/01#a505>
While the courtroom debate about Diebold and its memos was unfolding
in California, another version of the conflict was taking place here
at Harvard University. Berkman Center affiliate Derek Slater (Harvard
College '04), one of the students who posted the Diebold memos, had to
make his case to Harvard rather than a California judge that his
website did not violate copyright laws. Slater first posted the memos
at the end of October as a sign of solidarity with the Swarthmore
students. Four days later, Harvard administrators contacted him to
say that his webpage would be taken down. The school had received a
cease-and-desist letter from Diebold indicating that his site
contained copyright-protected material, and, incompliance with 15 USC
512(i), the school had removed the offending web address.
To fight the university's decision, Slater enlisted the help of John
Palfrey, the Berkman Center's Executive Director, the EFF, and other
supporters. After several rounds of negotiations, the team convinced
Harvard that the "fair-use" test applied to Slater. Because he
posted the documents as a form of political speech and because the
documents were non-commercial in nature, the "fair-use" clause of
copyright law protects his actions.
Though Harvard ultimately accepted Slater's argument, the ordeal
indicates the potential misuses of the current copyright system. As
Palfrey explains, "the problem here is that copyright law was not
meant to stifle political speech." But if the Diebold case is any
indicator, application of the law can be a different story.
Media Coverage of the Harvard Story:
<http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=353515>
<http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=353509>
<http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349962>
Weblogs:
<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2003/11/25#a475>
<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/12/01#a505>
* Spam Eggs Spam Spam Bacon and Spam
In an effort to address the epidemic of unsolicited emails that flood
mailboxes everywhere, President George W. Bush has now signed into law
a bill that outlines specific penalties for bothersome electronic
marketing. The "CAN SPAM" Act (S. 877) would codify strict penalties
for the purveyors of spam who do not respect a user's requests to stop
receiving spam. The law also requires the FTC to study the possible
creation of a "do-not-spam" registry, similar to the popular but
controversial "do-not-call" list. While many celebrate the law as a
clear stand against frustrating advertising practices, others believe
it will do little to reduce inbox clogging.
The federal law, sponsored by Senators Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Ron
Wyden (D-Ore.), will pre-empt most previously enacted state
legislation, including California's controversial opt-in rule, which
is slated to take effect on January 1, 2004, which, unlike the federal
bill, forbids any unsolicited business email from an unknown party.
California is one of 36 states with anti-spam legislation currently on
the books.
For more on "Can Spam" legislation at the national level:
<http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031209_1079.html>
<http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002916.asp?0cv=TB10&cp1=1>
<http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877enrolled.pdf>
To read the full text of the bill:
<http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877enrolled.pdf>
For more on California's anti-spam law:
<http://tinyurl.com/yzza>
<http://www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/3096781>
To learn what can happen if you violate anti-spam laws:
<http://tinyurl.com/yzze>
For more on Monty Python's Spam sketch:
<http://www.detritus.org/spam/skit.html>
* CASE IN POINT 1.1
Case in Point is a new feature that will focus on a particular case of
significance, track its progress, and ask Filter readers for input on
important issues it raises.
The first Case in Point is Caldera v. IBM, also called the case
against open-source. The first discussion question asked about
possible advantages SCO gained by choosing to sue under state law
claims instead of under federal copyright provisions. Filter readers
named several.
--Contract language can be interpreted according to the plain meaning
of the language but also according to the way that the parties
themselves define the terms. SCO might be able to argue for a more
favorable definition of "derivative work" (in relation to creating
modifications) than courts have previously adopted when interpreting
that phrase under the Copyright Act, thus freeing SCO from having to
show direct copying into the Linux kernel.
--By suing under contract, the case is limited to the small number of
parties that signed the agreement itself. By threatening suit under
copyright, hundreds of Linux users might feel threatened since they
would be potential targets as well. These users might seek
declaratory judgments of non-infringement in their local courts which
could seriously drain the copyright owner's legal resources.
--The "home court" advantage and lower costs of state proceedings
can benefit the plaintiff.
The actual answer may have been much more mundane; according to news
reports, SCO simply lacked the documentation which established its
title to the copyrights. Having resolved that matter, SCO announced
last week that it was, after all, adding copyright claims to its suit.
See <http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5114689.html>
SCO's CEO, Daryl McBride, has posted an open letter in which he
argues that open-source licensing defeats the Constitutional purpose
of copyright when it interferes with an author's right to a monetary
reward. See
<http://www.newsforge.com/trends/03/12/04/2024240.shtml?tid=85>
Our next Case in Point question will appear in the January edition of
Filter. We hope to hear from you then.
[2] DISPATCHES
==============
Technology (and You) in Politics: The latest question in the Internet
& Society project in H2O asks you to be President of the United
States. Co-written by Kelly Nuxoll of the Howard Dean Campaign and
Berkman Center Senior Fellow Jim Moore, the question supposes that the
power has returned to the people through social software and personal
interaction, electing you, a President chosen by and for the people of
the United States of America. What would you do next?
This rotisserie is part of an ongoing project which welcomes everyone
interested in issues of technology and society. All are encouraged to
join regardless of expertise.
Note: The Berkman Center does not endorse any candidate in the
presidential or any other election. H2O and all other Berkman Center
tools are available to all candidates and others who would like to use
them.
To register, please go to:
<http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/JoinProject.do?projectID=65>
If you are already a participant in the I&S project, the rotisserie is
available at:
<http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/viewRotisserie.do?rotisserieId=335>
More about the Dean campaign:
<http://www.deanforamerica.com>
Jim Moore's homepage:
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/jim_moore>
[3] BERKMAN NEWS
================
* Internet Law Program 2004
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society is pleased to offer the
Internet Law Program at Harvard Law School on May 13-15, 2004. This
dynamic, innovative three-day seminar will bring together the leading
experts in the field with participants from all over the world to
explore today's most pressing Internet issues and provoke new ways of
thinking about the future of the Internet. The program kicks off with
a distance learning component on April 14 to May 5.
The outstanding team of educators includes Larry Lessig of Stanford,
Yochai Benkler of Yale, and William Fisher, Charles Nesson and
Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard. On the agenda: recent reforms in
intellectual-property systems, privacy versus security on the Net, the
changing shape and role of ICANN, "open" versus "proprietary" software
systems, regulating pornography, jurisdictional problems, cybercrime,
addressing the digital divide, and more.
The program is intended for a broad audience, and no previous
experience with Internet law is necessary. Past participants have
included entrepreneurs, policymakers, educators, technology
professionals, and journalists who write about technology. American
lawyers in some states may be eligible for Continuing Legal Education
(CLE) credit.
Register online beginning January 12 at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw>.
Questions? Please contact Robyn Mintz at
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
* BlogAfrica
BlogAfrica, a collaboration between Geekcorps, AllAfrica.com, the
Berkman Center and others, is intended to bring African and
Africa-centric blogs closer to the forefront of the blogosphere. A
catalog of these blogs has begun. In coming months, volunteer-led
instruction on blogging and free weblog hosting are planned. To get
involved or add your Africa-related weblog to the list, please visit
the site, or for more information, contact Berkman Fellow Ethan
Zuckerman <mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
<http://www.blogafrica.org>
* Music Co-op - Compulsory or Voluntary?
Thirty-five stakeholders in the future of digital media, ranging from
legal scholars to the songwriter for "The Clash," convened at the
Harvard Law School on Friday, December 5 to discuss a bold initiative:
creating Alternative Compensation Systems for Digital Media.
Participants were given a challenge - rather than discussing the
faults of existing online media distribution systems, they were asked
to build an alternative. It would resemble an entertainment co-op-a
system that maximizes public access to creative works and rewards
those who produce such work. For the first half of the conference,
discussion centered on building a compulsory system that would
redistribute tax revenue to creators based on how often their works
were downloaded. In the afternoon, participants focused on the idea
of a voluntary co-op, which would generate funding from subscription
fees. The details of how to formulate such a system may seem
overwhelming, but as music piracy continues to increase and the
DMCA's shortcomings become increasingly evident, perhaps policymakers
will begin to see that a bold alternative is best possible solution.
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/ACSmeeting.html>
[4] CONFERENCE WATCH
====================
January:
* January 22, 2004, San Francisco--National "Spam and the Law"
Conference: Law, Case Law and Legislation
<http://www.isipp.org/events.php>
May:
* May 10-14, 2004, Barcelona--INET/IGC 2004 Strengthening the Net:
Building an Open and Trusted Internet
<http://www.isoc.org/inet04/>
* May 13-15, 2004, Cambridge, MA--Internet Law Program
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw>
[5] BOOKMARKS
==============
* Public Participation in ICANN - A Study and A Reponse
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/icann_papers>
* Traceroutes: Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society
Student Weblog
<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/>
* WSIS: Updates on Progress at the World Summit for the Information
Society
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/>
* ATAC: Abusable Technologies Awareness Center
<http://www.abusabletech.org/>
[6] QUOTABLES
==============
* Technology for surveillance and data gathering is "becoming more
powerful every day," he said. "In the U.S., our response to this has
been to bury our heads in the sand and say, 'It'll all work out.'"
--Barry Steinhart of the ACLU, on legislating use of cell phone
cameras, in the New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/technology/circuits/11shoo.html?pagew
anted=2>
* Happy Holidays!
--From all of us at the Berkman Center
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people>
[7] TALK BACK
================
We are thinking about how we might adjust the Filter's format and
content. Your ideas and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Please send them to [log in to unmask]
[8] SUBSCRIPTION INFO
======================
Follow this link to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the list:
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/subscribe>
[9] ABOUT US
=============
Read The Filter online at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/>.
Who we are:
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/about.html>
[10] NOT A COPYRIGHT
=====================
A publication of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
Law School <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu> You may--and please
do--forward or copy this newsletter to friends and colleagues.
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
