RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress embarrassing memos

["Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe(at)usg.com>]

They're using the takedown provisions, not the anti-circumvention
provisions.

The information in question is an archive of internal mailing lists going
back to 1999. These mailing lists have some pretty damning information about
the actions of Diebold in certain districts and the reliability of their
voting machines.

Here's one to think about -- If I have a conversation with somebody, are
their
utterances copyright to them? Can I repeat everything they say to someone
else?
If I do so, am I in violation of anything (assuming no agreement exists
limiting that)? If that conversation is in the form of e-mail rather than
face
to face, does that character change? What if I overhear people talking on a
bus - can I repeat what they say? What if they're having a conversation on a
public website (or website only secured by obscurity)?

If an e-mail conversation is legally different than a spoken conversation,
why?

-Charlie

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 4:09 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress embarrassing memos



You are not breaking a circumvention device for security research you are
infringing upon copyright to do security research! 

Actually think about this one.... 

Diebold makes machines to "serve" the democratic process. 
People want to make certain it does. 
Diebold claims copyright infringement to prevent access. 
Copyright serves to promote progress in the science and the arts by
preventing scruitiny of how the democratic process is working. 

The Digital Millenimu CrappyRight Act in Action.... 

NOw does anyone want to consider the effects of the SonnyBoneHead Act? 

Diebold copyrights are valid for 95yrs! The democratic process can't be
assessed until nearly to the next century (Exercise for the alert
reader...what of the Mary Bono-Jack Valenti Memorial Copyrigth extension act
of 2010?) 


"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com> 
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 
10/31/2003 08:51 AM 
Please respond to dvd-discuss 
        
        To:        <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu> 
        cc:         
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress
embarrassing memos



Security by obscurity again rears it's ugly head.

Isn't there already a DMCA exemption for security research?


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:reinhold@world.std.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:12 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress 
> embarrassing memos
> 
> 
> Here is a link to a Wired article on Diebold Election Systems's 
> attempt to use the DMCA to suppress a large file of Diebold memos 
> that call in to question the security of Diebold's voting machines 
> and suggest possibly illegal conduct:
> 
> http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61002,00.html
> 
> A group of students at Swarthmore College are mounting what they call 
> an electronic civil disobedience campaign to get large numbers of 
> sites to mirror the files. The campaign is headquartered at the 
> why-war.com web site: http://why-war.com/features/2003/10/diebold.html
> 
> While the President of Swarthmore says he is proud of the students, 
> he is complying fully with Diebold's demands. "... students were 
> angered by the school's decision to take down sites that linked to 
> sites posting the memos, in addition to actual sites that posted the 
> memos. "
> 
> Another site that refused to remove links:
> 
> http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1649419_comment.php
> 
> is being defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
> 
> http://www.eff.org/Legal/ISP_liability/20031016_eff_pr.php
> 
> 
> Arnold Reinhold
>