--- Begin Message ---
EFFector Vol. 19, No. 4 January 27, 2005 editor@xxxxxxx
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
ISSN 1062-9424
In the 365th Issue of EFFector:
* Action Alert: Stop Congress from Mandating Secret
Technology!
* Supreme Court Tackles Dangerous Patent Ruling
* Nevada Court Rules Google Cache Is Fair Use
* MPAA: Copying Movies OK for Our Families, Not Yours
* Nominate a Pioneer for EFF's 2006 Pioneer Awards!
* Staff Calendar
* miniLinks (15): Logging and the Law
* Administrivia
For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
<http://www.eff.org/>
Make a donation and become an EFF member today!
<http://eff.org/support/>
Tell a friend about EFF:
http://action.eff.org/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1061
effector: n, Computer Sci. A device for producing a desired
change.
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Action Alert: Stop Congress from Mandating Secret
Technology!
The Digital Transition Content Security Act (H.R.4569) - or
Analog Hole bill - would force every video player or recorder
with an analog output in America to watch for and obey a
proprietary signal embedded in video broadcasts called a VEIL
watermark. But how would such a detector work? What would be
its cost? And how secure is the watermark? Security
researchers don't know - because the company behind VEIL
won't let them look at the technology without first obtaining
a "license." A license to examine the VEIL specification
costs $10,000 and requires signing a non-disclosure agreement
that forbids revealing the details of the technology to
others. Congress is choosing a technology that must be built
into your systems, and it's not giving non-entertainment
industry experts the opportunity to check out the technology
first to make sure it doesn't break your systems, or, even
worse, leave those systems vulnerable to attack.
A technology that is a basic component in almost every audio-
visual device, from camcorders to VCRs to TV cards - analog-
to-digital (A/D) converters - is about to be encumbered with
mysterious and proprietary black box watermark technology.
Congress is highly unqualified to mandate specific
technologies for us; tech mandates like this are even more
dangerous when there's no chance for independent review.
Oversight is impossible when third parties hold the keys to
the law. Write to your Representative now, and demand that
Congress reject outright this bill with its undisclosed,
proprietary provisions.
Visit our Action Center now:
<http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=207>
More Info:
Full text of the bill:
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h4569:>
Ed Felten's attempts to examine VEIL:
<http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=958>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Supreme Court Tackles Dangerous Patent Ruling
EFF Asks Justices to Consider Critical Free-Speech
Implications
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the United States
Supreme Court Thursday, asking justices to overturn a court
ruling in a patent case with dangerous implications for
free speech and consumers' rights. The Public Patent
Foundation, the American Library Association, the American
Association of Law Libraries, and the Special Library
Association joined EFF on the brief.
At issue is a case involving online auctioneer eBay and a
company called MercExchange. Last year, the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that eBay violated
MercExchange's online auction patents and that eBay could
be permanently enjoined, or prohibited, from using the
patented technology. But as part of the ruling, the court
came to a perilous conclusion, holding that patentees who
prove their case have a right to permanent injunctions
under all but "exceptional circumstances," like a major
public health crisis. This radical rule created an
"automatic injunction" standard that ignored the
traditional balancing and discretion used by judges to
consider how such a decision might affect other public
interests--including free speech online.
"As more and more people use software and Internet
technology to express themselves online, the battle over
software patents has grave implications for online speech,"
said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "Courts must
work harder than ever to ensure that technologies like
blogs, email, online video, and instant messaging remain
free and available to the public."
The lower court's ruling stems in part from a misperception
that patents are just like other forms of property, with
the same rights and remedies. However, Supreme Court
rulings have repeatedly emphasized that patents are a
unique form of property, designed to achieve a specific
public purpose: the promotion of scientific and industrial
progress.
"Part of the court's duty in patent cases is to make sure
that the system helps the public's right to free speech
instead of hurting it," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason
Schultz. "If this ruling is allowed to stand, courts won't
be able to do what's right."
For the full brief:
<http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ebay_v_mercexchange/eff_amicus_brief.pdf >
For more on patents and how bad law can hurt the public:
<http://www.eff.org/patent>
For this release:
<http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_01.php#004346>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Nevada Court Rules Google Cache Is Fair Use
Important Milestone for Digital Copyright Law
San Francisco - A federal district court in Nevada has
ruled that Google does not violate copyright law when it
copies websites, stores the copies, and transmits them to
Internet users as part of its Google Cache feature. The
ruling clarifies the legal status of several common search
engine practices and could influence future court cases,
including the lawsuits brought by book publishers against
the Google Library Project. The Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) was not involved in the case but applauds
last week's ruling for clarifying that fair use covers new
digital uses of copyrighted materials.
Blake Field, an author and attorney, brought the copyright
infringement lawsuit against Google after the search engine
automatically copied and cached a story he posted on his
website. Google responded that its Google Cache feature,
which allows Google users to link to an archival copy of
websites indexed by Google, does not violate copyright law.
The court agreed, holding that the Cache qualifies as a
fair use of copyrighted material.
"This ruling makes it clear that the Google Cache is legal
and clears away copyright questions that have troubled the
entire search engine industry," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF
senior staff attorney. "The ruling should also help Google
in defending against the lawsuit brought by book publishers
over its Google Library Project, as well as assisting
organizations like the Internet Archive that rely on
caching."
Field v. Google ruling:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/blake_v_google/google_nevada_order.pdf>
For this release:
<http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_01.php#004345>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* MPAA: Copying Movies OK for Our Families, Not Yours
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA) made unauthorized copies of a
new documentary, This Film Not Yet Rated, that is critical of
the organization.
The copies were apparently made when the film was submitted
for an MPAA rating. The film got an NC-17, a somewhat ironic
outcome for a film that exposes the unfairness of the MPAA
ratings system.
The MPAA made the copies because they "were concerned about
the raters and their families," according to Kori Bernards,
the MPAA's vice president for corporate communications. The
identities of the MPAA ratings board have been a closely
guarded secret, at least until This Film Not Yet Rated did
some amateur detective work to sniff them out. Now that the
word is out, the MPAA apparently is afraid for "their
families"?
So copying movies is OK when it's done to protect the
families of the MPAA ratings board, but not OK when it's done
to protect the families of movie fans. After all, the MPAA
and its members have said it's "theft" and "piracy" for you
to copy your own DVDs -- whether to make a back-up copy to
protect your DVDs from being scratched by your toddler; or to
edit out the annoying, unskippable commercials that open many
DVDs; or to skip strong language, nudity, and violence that
you think is inappropriate for your family.
Complete Los Angeles Times story:
<http://www.latimes.com/business/custom/cotown/cl-et-mpaa24jan24,0,2188275.s
tory>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Nominate a Pioneer for EFF's 2006 Pioneer Awards!
EFF established the Pioneer Awards to recognize leaders on
the electronic frontier who are extending freedom and
innovation in the realm of information technology. This is
your opportunity to nominate a deserving individual or group
to receive a Pioneer Award for 2006.
The International Pioneer Awards nominations are open both to
individuals and organizations from any country. Nominations
are reviewed by a panel of judges chosen for their knowledge
of the technical, legal, and social issues associated with
information technology.
This year's award ceremony will be held in Washington, DC, in
conjunction with the Computers, Freedom and Privacy
conference (CFP), which takes place in early May.
How to Nominate Someone for a 2006 Pioneer Award:
You may send as many nominations as you wish, but please use
one email per nomination. Please submit your entries via
email to pioneer@xxxxxxxx We will accept nominations until
February 1, 2006.
Simply tell us:
1. The name of the nominee;
2. The phone number or email address or website by which the
nominee can be reached, and, most importantly; and
3. Why you feel the nominee deserves the award.
Nominee Criteria:
There are no specific categories for the EFF Pioneer Awards,
but the following guidelines apply:
1. The nominees must have contributed substantially to the
health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based
communications.
2. To be valid, all nominations must contain your reason,
however brief, for nominating the individual or organization
and a means of contacting the nominee. In addition, while
anonymous nominations will be accepted, ideally we'd like to
contact the nominating parties in case we need further
information.
3. The contribution may be technical, social, economic, or
cultural.
4. Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or
organizations in the private or public sectors.
5. Nominations are open to all (other than current members of
EFF's staff and executive board or this year's award judges),
and you may nominate more than one recipient. You may also
nominate yourself or your organization.
6. Persons or representatives of organizations receiving an
EFF Pioneer Award will be invited to attend the ceremony at
EFF's expense.
More on the EFF Pioneer Awards:
<http://www.eff.org/awards/pioneer/>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Staff Calendar
For a complete listing of EFF speaking engagements (with
locations and times), please visit the full calendar:
<http://www.eff.org/calendar/>
February 1
Ren Bucholz speaking at Hamilton Linux Users Group in
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada at 7pm
<http://hamilton.linux.ca/viewtopic.php?p=232>
February 2
Ren Bucholz speaking at Social Tech Brewing in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada at 6pm
<http://www.socialinnovation.ca/space/>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* miniLinks
miniLinks features noteworthy news items from around the
Internet.
~ Logging and the Law
Representative Markey proposes a bill to regulate search
engine privacy.
<http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=958&Itemid=12
5>
~ No Results Found--Did You Mean "Sorry?"
MSN's search team gives their reasons for handing over user
data to the DOJ, and none-too-happy users comment.
<http://blogs.msdn.com/msnsearch/archive/2006/01/20/515606.aspx>
~ United States Versus Google Over Search Data
Danny Sullivan's useful guide to the legal documents on
Google's fight with the DOJ.
<http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-161802>
~ The Sausage Factory--Live!
Senator Obama introduces a law that would put the details of
pork barrel projects and last minute amendments online for
all to see before a vote.
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID=551>
~ Derek Slater to Join EFF
You can look forward to his work in the next few weeks.
<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2006/01/24#a1530>
~ Hint: Users Vote Too
Canadian MP Sam Bulte, days after railing against "pro-user
zealots" and "EFF members," is kicked out of office.
<http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/175/>
~ Stereophile for Fair Use
The influential hi-fi magazine gapes open-mouthed at the
broadcast flag legislation.
<http://www.stereophile.com/news/012306fairuse/>
~ Your Face Is Ours Forever
Lauren Gelman notes that Facebook sneaks itself an
irrevocable, perpetual non-exclusive license to all of its
student users' content.
<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/gelman/archives/003726.shtml>
~ Video iPod Revolutionaries
Think your video iPod is hard to fill? Blame the DMCA. Declan
McCullagh shows the growing movement to reform it.
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID=552>
~ The Brin Defense
Sergey Brin gives his justification for censoring Google in
China.
<http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/news/international/davos_fortune/?cnn=yes>
~ State of the Anonymous Web
The New York Times notes the increasing interest in anonymous
Net access and gives Tor top marks.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/technology/techspecial2/25privacy.html>
~ Fact-Checking and the Fourth
Glenn Greenwald spots that in June 2002, the Administration
declined to accept from Congress the powers that they now
claim they have, worrying that it might be unconstitutional.
<http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-new-fisa-defense
-is.html>
~ Hacking a Bit of Google Privacy
If you worry that Google is tying your searches to your
cookie, Don Marti has a Perl script for you. (FYI, we've
recently started doing similar proxy filtering on EFF site
searches.)
<http://zgp.org/~dmarti/blosxom/freedom/google-privacy.html>
~ Evaporating Watermarks
Ed Felten takes a close look at CD DRM--in this case, the
watermarking used by SunComm's MediaMax.
<http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=960>
~ The Several Hundred Banned Words
Wikipedia, banned in China, shows you what is banned in
China.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_blocked_by_search_engines_in_Mai
nland_China>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
* Administrivia
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
rebecca@xxxxxxx
Membership & donation queries:
membership@xxxxxxx
General EFF, legal, policy, or online resources queries:
information@xxxxxxx
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 change your email address:
http://action.eff.org/addresschange
This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
_______________________________________________
sdlibchat mailing list
sdlibchat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://listserv.sdlp.org/mailman/listinfo/sdlibchat_listserv.sdlp.org
--- End Message ---