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

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

The court does not have to "extend" the law ... they're covered
as the law is written.  If the court interprets the law otherwise,
that interpretation should be appealed.

-- 
-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: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:27 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for some users
> 
> 
> The danger here is thinking that the court will NOT extend 
> the law down to the 
> personal computer not that the law as written allows it..
> 
> 
> 
> 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:      	Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:44:20 -1000
> Organization:   	Poelman & Langa
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > I agree with that. The court doesn't need to engage in statutory
> > construction gymnastics to know what that phrase means. It 
> is stated in
> > plain, easy to understand english. To interpret it as 
> meaning "...used by a
> > major corporation in interstate or foreign commerce or 
> communication" would
> > violate the normal rules of statutory construction.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> > To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:13 AM
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Dion's new CD crashing party for 
> some users
> > 
> > 
> > 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/ ]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
>