Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Most of the computers attached to AOL?

What they are trying to protect are computers that are involved in the 
infrastructure of banking, government, medicine, or commerce <ALL bow down and 
worship the New God.....Commerce>. That's pretty clear. That's a viable 
interpretation....remember that if a law has a viable interpretation, that is 
how the law is interpreted by the courts. . Unfortunatly, while I would like to 
think that my computer is as important as those doing gold transfers at Chase 
Manhatten Bank, clearly the law does not.

From:           	"Sanford Langa" <langa@mauilaw.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users
Date sent:      	Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:39:46 -1000
Organization:   	Poelman & Langa
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> I don't think I've ever seen a computer that isn't a "protected computer"
> under subsection (B). What computer isn't used in interstate commerce or
> communication?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
> To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users
> 
> 
> The problem with the application of the law in this case is that it
> applies ONLY to *protected* computers.
> 
> a) Whoever -
> >>> ...
> >>> (5)(A)knowingly causes ..... to a *protected computer*;
> >>>
> >>> (B)intentionally accesses a *protected computer* without
> authorization,
> >>>....
> >>>
> >>> (C)intentionally accesses a *protected computer* ....
> 
> 
> 2)the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
> >>>
> >>> (A)  exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United
> >>> States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for
> >>> such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States
> >>> Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use
> >>> by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
> >>>
> >>> (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;
> 
> Congress has made it an offense to interfere with *protected* computers.
> Congress has left an out since "Unprotected" computers seemingly are not
> covered....although I do NOT see much difference between Sony and the
> everyday writer of virii in this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 04/05/02 12:30 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for
> some users
> 
> 
> The issue is not consumers' inability to play the Dion disk on their
> PC's. Sony may well have the right to issue media that doesn't play
> in computers as long as its clearly so marked. (Consumers who have
> purchased expensive computers on the understanding that they could
> use them to play CDs might have a claim against Sony given that Sony
> participated in that marketing effort -- especially consumers that
> purchased Sony computers! But that's another story.)
> 
> I'm saying that, as I read the law, Sony does not have a right to
> release media it knows will cause computers to crash. Not only are
> crashes inconvenient, they can corrupt file systems causing data
> loss.  Congress has made it a criminal offense to intentionally
> release a program or information that damages computers.  They have
> amended the law several times to extend it's reach. The courts have
> apparently said it applies even when the program  is merely being
> used to enforce contract rights.
> 
> I agree it might be hard for an individual to bring a case. The Judge
> could say, you obviously know about these disks so presumably you
> won't be using them. But someone responsible for many computers or
> who has a health or safety angle would have a good argument, I think.
> 
> Arnold Reinhold
> 
> 
> At 9:17 AM -0800 4/5/02, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> >I think it may be stretching it a bit. The defense is that they only
> >caused a minor problem resolved by merely rebooting the machine to N
> >Million "consumers" who should have read the disclaimer <is it on the CD
> >or just the jewel case. If the latter then that is fraudulant marking of
> a
> >product which is the CD>...and having been suitably punished should never
> >do that again!
> >
> >Now if some administrator tries to play it in his master control station
> >and it causes the network at a hospital or bank or government facility to
> >lock up and freeze, then therre may be something to this but for the
> >millions who can't play their CDs in their computer I think the courts
> may
> >have deaf ears....unless the judge who hears the case has tried  to play
> >Celine Dion on HIS computer!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
> >Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >04/04/02 09:08 PM
> >Please respond to dvd-discuss
> >
> >
> >        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >        cc:
> >        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing
> >party for some users
> >
> >
> >That's why I suggested a large university would be ideal. A users
> >group might also be able to show aggregated losses.
> >
> >But there's that "damage or loss" phrase in (g). I suppose one could
> >argue that "damage" includes everything defined in (e) (8), i.e.
> >including medical diagnosis affects or threats to public safety,
> >while the "or loss" part includes ANY monetary damages.
> >
> >There may even be a public health and safety argument as well,  since
> >hospital people probably play CDs at work.
> >
> >Arnold Reinhold
> >
> >At 6:26 PM -0800 4/4/02, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> >>IANAL but the problem would be damages. $5000 is a lot to prove on one
> >>computer. On 1M computers at minimum wage it's pretty.Maybe this might
> be
> >a
> >>time for small claims court. How about 100,000 suits against them in
> >small
> >>claims court?
> >>
> >>Date sent:                      Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:43:44 -0500
> >>To:                             dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >>From:                           "Arnold G. Reinhold"
> ><reinhold@world.std.com>
> >>Subject:                        Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing
> >>party for some users
> >>Send reply to:                  dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >>
> >>> At 11:03 AM -0500 4/4/02, Dean Sanchez wrote:
> >>> >Yahoo! News has an article about how Sony's new Celine Dion's cd can
> >>> >crash a user's computer and how Sony admits to this action.  I would
> >>> >think that this could be considered a "criminal hacking" action and
> >>> >subject them to civil and criminal legation, couldn't it?
> >>> >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/bpihw/20020403/en_bpih
> > >> >w/dion_s_new_cd_crashing_party_for_some_users&printer=1
> >>>
> >>> I am not a lawyer, but my reading of Federal law (18 USC 1030,
> >>> excerpts below) suggests Sony should think twice before selling audio
> >>> disks (they certainly ought not be called CDs) with  crash-inducing
> >>> copy protection in the United States.
> >>>
> >>> It's no sure thing that the Government would act, but there is this
> >>> interesting provision in subsection (g) that provides for injunctive
> >>> relief for any person that suffers damage or "loss."  Might it be
> >>> possible to seek a court order baring Sony  from introducing this
> >>> technology into the U.S.? There is the problem of showing damages
> >>> before the albums are sold here.  Perhaps a perceived need to perform
> >>> additional backups would do. So might an incident involving an Dion
> >>> album purchased in Europe and brought to the U.S.
> >>>
> >>> A university would make an ideal plaintiff since they typically own
> >>> hundreds of computers that are used by students, who sometimes play
> >>> CDs (perfectly legally). Universities can easily document the cost of
> >>> crashes in terms of support staff time and the risk of lost data.
> >>> They also usually have Government research contracts, whose data
> >>> could be affected by by Sony-induced crashes. This brings them under
> >>> the protection of both subsections of (e)(2).
> >>>
> >>> See also http://www.loundy.com/E-LAW/E-Law4-full.html#VII which
> >>> points out: "The civil provisions were first used in North Texas
> >>> Preventative Imaging v. Eisenberg,  which held that a "time bomb"
> >>> inserted into a software update to ensure payment could constitute a
> >>> violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act." [i.e. 18USC1030]
> >>>
> >>> Many states have laws on this as well.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Arnold Reinhold
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> =========================================
> >>>
> >>> 18 USC 1030 Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
> >>>
> >>> (a) Whoever -
> >>> ...
> >>> (5)(A)knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information,
> >>> code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally
> >>> causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
> >>>
> >>> (B)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization,
> >>> and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
> >>>
> >>> (C)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization,
> >>> and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
> >>> ...
> >>> shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
> >>>
> >>> (b)Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this
> >> > section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this
> >>> section.
> >>>
> >>> (c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this
> >>> section is -
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> (3) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
> >>> five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection
> >>> (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) of this section which does
> >>> not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section,
> >>> or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this
> >>> subparagraph; and
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> (e)  As used in this section -
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> (2)the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
> >>>
> >>> (A)  exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United
> >>> States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for
> >>> such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States
> >>> Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use
> >>> by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
> >>>
> >>> (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> (8) the term ''damage'' means any impairment to the integrity or
> >>> availability of data, a program, a system, or information, that -
> >>>
> >>
> >> > (A) causes loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any
> >>> 1-year period to one or more individuals;
> >>> (B) modifies or impairs, or potentially modifies or impairs, the
> >>> medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of one or more
> >>> individuals;
> >>> (C) causes physical injury to any person; or
> >>> (D) threatens public health or safety;
> > >> ...
> >>>
> >>> (g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of
> >>> this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to
> >>> obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable
> >>> relief.  ...
> >>>
> >>> [from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
>