yowza:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: EFFector list <[email protected]>
Date: Nov 4, 2005 3:27 PM
Subject: EFFector 18.37: Action Alert - Horror Triple Bill for Digital
Technology
To: [email protected]
EFFector Vol. 18, No. 38 November 4, 2005 [email protected]
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
ISSN 1062-9424
In the 354th Issue of EFFector:
* Action Alert: Horror Triple Bill for Digital Technology
* File-Sharing Lawsuits Fail to Deter P2P Downloaders
* Justice Department Not Appealing Cell Phone Surveillance
Cases
* Uproot Sony-BMG's Invasion of Your Privacy and Your
Computer
* Report from Hearing on National Security Letters
* miniLinks (6): What Would Justice Do? Clues on Alito
* Staff Calendar: 11.11.05 - Fred von Lohmann speaks at
National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC
* Administrivia
For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
<http://www.eff.org/>
Make a donation and become an EFF member today!
<https://secure.eff.org/support>
Tell a friend about EFF:
<http://action.eff.org/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1061>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Action Alert: Horror Triple Bill for Digital Technology
This Thursday, the heads of the MPAA and RIAA presented to
the House Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property their plans for the future of digital
technology. They gave the House drafts of three bills they
would like passed: the Analog Content Protection Act, the HD
Radio Content Protection Act, and the Broadcast Flag
Authorization Act. These proposed laws are truly a horror
triple bill.
For high-definition television (HDTV), the MPAA demands every
receiver must have, and obey, their broadcast flag. For new
radio technologies, the RIAA will restrict you to recording
radio shows for a minimum of 30 minutes, for a maximum of 50
hours. And all analog to digital video conversions will be
forced to watch for, and obey, a concealed signal, refusing
to digitize any image that contains a key watermark.
If any one of these provisions passes, it would be disaster
for you and for innovation.
Visit our Action Center, and warn your representative of what
Hollywood's horror bills would do to the digital future!
<http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=181>
More info:
EFF Analysis: Halloween on the Hill
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004106.php#004106>
The MPAA's Analog Hole Bill:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/analog_hole_discussion_draft.pdf>
The RIAA's HD Radio Bill:
<
http://action.eff.org/site/DocServer/Analog_Hole_Discussion_Draft.pdf?docID=
=281
>
The Broadcast Flag Bill:
<
http://action.eff.org/site/DocServer/Broadcast_Flag_Discussion_Draft.pdf?do=
cID=321
>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* File-Sharing Lawsuits Fail to Deter P2P Downloaders
RIAA v. The People: Two Years Later
Chicago - It's been two years since the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) started suing music fans who
share songs online. Thousands of Americans have been hit by
lawsuits, but both peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing and the
litigation continue unabated.
In a report released Thursday, "RIAA v. The People: Two Years
Later," the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues that
the lawsuits are singling out only a select few fans for
retribution, and many of them can't afford either to settle
the case or defend themselves. EFF's report cites the case of
a single mother in Minnesota who faces $500,000 in penalties
for her daughter's alleged downloading, as well as the case
of a disabled veteran who was targeted for downloading songs
she already owned.
"Out of the millions of people who download music from P2P
systems every day, the RIAA arbitrarily picks a few hundred
to sue every month," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von
Lohmann. "Many of those families suffer severe financial
hardship. But despite all the publicity, studies show that
P2P usage is increasing instead of decreasing."
"RIAA v. The People" was released in conjunction with the
first annual P2P Litigation Summit in Chicago on Thursday,
which brings together defense attorneys, clients, advocates,
and academics to discuss the latest developments in the
lawsuits.
Three other reports released Thursday were aimed at helping
lawyers representing music fans sued by the RIAA. "Typical
Claims and Counter Claims in Peer to Peer Litigation" is a
general discussion of the lawsuits, while "Parental Liability
for Copyright Infringement by Minor Children" and "Copyright
Judgments in Personal Bankruptcy" both tackle important
issues arising in defending families from devastating
judgments.
"After two years of lawsuits, there's only one conclusion to
draw," said von Lohmann. "Suing music fans is no answer to
the P2P dilemma."
For "RIAA v. The People: Two Years Later":
<http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAAatTWO_FINAL.pdf>
For "Typical Claims and Counter Claims in Peer to Peer
Litigation:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/P2P_witkin.pdf>
For "Parental Liability for Copyright Infringement":
<http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/Parent_Liability_Nov_2005.pdf>
For "Copyright Judgments in Personal Bankruptcy":
<http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/P2P_bktcy_memo.pdf>
For more on the P2P Litigation Summit:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_litigation_summit.php>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
*Justice Department Not Appealing Cell Phone Surveillance
Cases
DOJ's Decision Denies Courts Guidance on When to Authorize
Tracking
San Francisco - The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has told
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that it will not
appeal a New York decision that forcefully rejected its
request to track a cell phone user without first showing
probable cause of a crime. It also appears that DOJ will
not appeal a similar opinion recently issued in Texas.
Last week in the Eastern District of New York, Federal
Magistrate Judge James Orenstein, in a scathing opinion,
rejected DOJ's request to track a cell phone without a
warrant, agreeing with a brief EFF filed in the case.
Describing the government's justifications for the tracking
request as "unsupported," "misleading," and "contrived,"
Orenstein ruled that tracking cell phone users in real time
required a showing of probable cause that a crime is being
committed. Earlier this month, another federal magistrate
judge in the Southern District of Texas published his own
opinion denying another government application for a cell
phone tracking order. DOJ has failed to file timely
objections with the District Court in that case, too.
Although DOJ may still decide to appeal that case to the
Fifth Circuit, its choice not to appeal the nearly
identical opinion in the New York case makes that seem
unlikely.
"The government's decision not to appeal either of these
cases is disappointing," explained EFF staff attorney Kevin
Bankston. "The magistrate judge in New York explicitly
encouraged the government to appeal the decision so that he
and his fellow judges around the country could get some
guidance from the higher courts. The very important
question of when the government can track your cell phone
remains an open question that should be argued openly in
the appeals court, not litigated piece-meal in lower-court
proceedings where the government is secretly presenting
cell phone tracking requests."
An October 28 story in the Washington Post reported that,
when questioned about the court decisions, "Justice
Department officials countered that courts around the
country have granted many such orders in the past without
requiring probable cause."
"The Justice Department has been arguing for warrantless
cell phone tracking in secret proceedings with magistrate
judges across the country, probably for years," said
Bankston. "My biggest fear is that DOJ intends to continue
these illegal surveillance orders in secret, while avoiding
scrutiny from higher courts."
To read the full text of Judge Orenstein's opinion,
and the similar Texas opinion:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/USA_v_PenRegister
For this release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_11.php#004122
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Uproot Sony-BMG's Invasion of Your Privacy and Your
Computer
For years now, copy-restriction software has been a looming
threat to those who purchase music and want to make fair
uses, such as space-shifting it from one device or computer
to another. Fortunately, early versions of the software were
so cumbersome and easy to work around that consumers whole-
heartedly rejected or bypassed them. Recently, however, at
least one record label has stepped up the war for control of
digital content by drawing from the playbook of spyware
companies and virus-writers.
Using a program called a rootkit, inserting a Sony BMG music
CD will now infect your computer with a nefarious program,
burying it deeply and obscurely within your operating system.
The program will monitor your computer activity in the name
of preventing the so-called "epidemic of piracy" that results
from people making extra copies of their music CDs or
favorite songs. Worse yet, there is no "uninstall" feature on
this program. It's like the roach motel – once Sony BMG's
surveillance program checks in, you can't make it check out
without completely wiping your entire system clean. Such
practices have been widely condemned in the computer world,
even by Microsoft's own research division.
Outrage from computer users and music fans has sparked Sony
BMG into offering a program on its website that will show you
if you have been infected with the rootkit. However, while
you can see the program running, you still can't uninstall
it, and some security experts believe installing the "update"
may even infect your computer with more unwanted files.
While it is debatable whether copy-restriction software can
even prevent serious illegal copying to begin with, there
should be no question that invading our computers and
infecting our systems should be off-limits. Unfortunately,
the law is unclear on the exact rights users have to keep
programs like Sony's rootkit off your computer when you
purchase their CDs or click on a random "I Agree" button that
might appear during an installation process. Until the law
clarifies that We the Consumer actually hold the rights and
keys to our computers, spyware companies, virus-makers, and
now even entertainment conglomerates will be the ones
dictating what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our own
homes with the equipment and content we have lawfully
purchased. Left unchecked, they will continue using our own
computers against us to enforce their will and whims over our
personal freedoms and behavior.
Entertainment companies often complain that computer users
refuse to respect their intellectual property rights. Yet
tools like Sony's rootkit refuse to respect our own personal
property and privacy rights. Such hypocrisy should not stand.
Note: According to Princeton University CS Prof. Ed Felten,
if you're using a recent version of Windows, you can protect
yourself against this type of software, and some other
security risks, by disabling autorun.
More on the Sony rootkit:
<
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.h=
tml
>
More on the Sony response:
<
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/11/02/finan=
cial/f160614S41.DTL
>
More on Ed Felten's suggestions:
<http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=920>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Report from Hearing on National Security Letters
Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument
in the case of Doe v. Gonzales, considering whether National
Security Letters (NSLs) are unconstitutional. NSLs are secret
subpoenas for communications logs issued directly by the FBI
without any judicial oversight. These secret subpoenas allow
the FBI to demand that online service providers produce
records of where their customers go on the Web, as well as
what they read and with whom they exchange email. The FBI can
even issue NSLs for information about people who haven't
committed any crimes.
In addition, NSLs are practically immune to judicial review.
They are accompanied by gag orders that allow no exception
for talking to lawyers and provide no effective opportunity
for the recipients to challenge them in court. This secret
subpoena authority, which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT
Act, could be applied to nearly any online service provider
for practically any type of record, without a court ever
knowing.
In a landmark decision, the federal district court in the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) found NSLs
unconstitutional, and the Second Circuit heard the
government's appeal. The argument was consolidated with the
hearing on the government's appeal of a second NSL case in
Connecticut, which stuck down a gag order imposed on a
library under the same statute.
The consolidated cases were heard before Judges Richard
Cardamone, Joseph McLaughlin and Barrington Parker, Jr. The
Department of Justice represented the government and the
American Civil Liberties Union represented the unidentified
"John Doe" plaintiffs.
The argument focused almost exclusively on the SDNY case,
with the DOJ arguing that NSLs were constitutional because,
while not specified in the statute, the law implicitly allows
for judicial review and implicitly allows consultation with
an attorney. Under questioning from the bench, the government
took the position that the NSL statute allowed a company to
communicate with "the correct people" inside the company and
with outside attorneys.
The court was concerned about the unlimited time of the gag
orders, to which the DOJ argued that the needs of national
security mean that there is a continued need for secrecy. As
a "fall-back" position, the DOJ also argued that this case
should be examined "as applied" to the particular facts of
the case in which the investigation is ongoing. One judge
expressed concern about having a "great shroud of secrecy,"
noting that "we are an open society."
Read the full report from the hearing:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004115.php#004115
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* miniLinks
miniLinks features noteworthy news items from around the
Internet.
~ RFIDs to Be Placed in US Passports
The "Potential Hostage Radio Beacon" is planned for October
2006.
<http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=6269>
~ Why Software Patents Are Like Smoking
The CEO of MySQL tries to clear the air.
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story 051025165105685>
~ RIM vs NTP vs the Common Good
"The tail of inventor enrichment is currently wagging the dog
of social benefit," says eWeek.
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1877194,00.asp>
~ Utah Statesman on the Broadcast Flag
The campus section looks into student and faculty worries
about broadcast flag legislation.
<
http://www.utahstatesman.com/media/paper243/news/2005/10/31/CampusNews/New-=
Bill.Could.Mean.End.Of.Tv.Recording-1039210.shtml
>
~ What Would Justice Do?
Donna Wentworth pulls together the clues on Alito's
intellectual property stance.
<http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/10/31/alito_on_copyright.php
>
~ Statewatch's Annotated Guide to EU Data Retention
Everything you might want to know collected in one place–
just like the proposal asks.
<http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/oct/dat-ret-ep.htm>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Staff Calendar
For a complete listing of EFF speaking engagements (with
locations and times), please visit the full calendar:
<http://www.eff.org/calendar/>
November 11
Fred von Lohmann speaking at the National Lawyers Convention
in Washington, DC
<http://fed-soc.org/events/lawyersconvention/2005LawCon/2005LawConIntro.htm>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Administrivia
EFF Privacy Policy:
<http://www.eff.org/policy/>
EFFector is published by:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
<http://www.eff.org/>
Editor:
Rebecca Jeschke, Media Coordinator
[email protected]
Membership & donation queries:
[email protected]
General EFF, legal, policy, or online resources queries:
[email protected]
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is
encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the
views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually,
please contact the authors for their express permission.
Press releases and EFF announcements & articles may be
reproduced individually at will.
Current and back issues of EFFector are available via the Web
at:
<http://www.eff.org/effector/>
Click here to unsubscribe or change your subscription
preferences:
http://action.eff.org/site/CO?i=qQxR7ivXX-p_hL5aHmnCiwSRAqZ08r5P&cid=10=
41
Click here to change your email address:
http://action.eff.org/addresschange
To unsubscribe from all future email, paste the following URL into your
browser:
http://action.eff.org/site/CO?i=bhKEv6YqG3ycuJhQb-1amQZ8KeGDju2v&cid=10=
41
Fwd: EFFector 18.37: Action Alert - Horror Triple Bill for Digital Technology
-
Type: discussion