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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

b) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication

Under part (b), I'm on a "protected" computer if I 
ever order anything from a web site for a store that
is not based in California.  Heck, given "communication"
as separated from "commerce" then all I have to do is
_browse_ a site from somewhere else and I've engaged
in "communication"!





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

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 6:08 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users
> 
> 
> 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/ ]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>