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

[Michael A Rolenz <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

No...the copyright is protecting the Diebold documents that describe how they are protecting the vote.

"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 10/31/2003 03:06 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss

To:        <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>         cc:                 Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress embarrassing memos

I presume the protection mechanism is there to
protect the votes.
 
Votes are _facts_, and therefore not subject
to copyright.

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:09 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
>