[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Censorware decryption and designated cat-bellers
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Censorware decryption and designated cat-bellers
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:54:32 -0700
- In-reply-to: <20030516142112.GB12058@sethf.com>
- References: <3EC3EA07.11337.5A7971@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
On 16 May 2003 at 10:21, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Date sent: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:21:12 -0400
From: Seth Finkelstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Censorware decryption and designated cat-bellers
Send reply to: email@example.com
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > There was a lot of discussion regarding the numbers of people that
> > may want to do censorware decryption. I do not think the committee
> > realized that many are content that others do.
> Well, I've tried to convey this to the committee very clearly.
> And I have legal concerns *plus* smears e.g. from Slashdot's Michael Sims
> to burden me. Frankly, being the designated cat-beller isn't worth it!
> [Reference: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/cpbfaq.html#whatlawsuit
> and http://www.spectacle.org/0203/sims.html ]
> One of the less-amusing parts of:
> MR. TEPP: I understand your point. I guess what I'm curious about is,
> why no one else is interested -- I mean, those sound like interesting
> questions. Why isn't anybody else looking at this? Why aren't these
> institutions that conduct these studies interested in the architecture
> of the filtering software?
> MR. FINKELSTEIN: Because there's no money in it and it is legally
> risky. There is a quote from Ben Edelman, who is part of the Edelman
> v. N2H2 case, a widely-reported quote: "I want to go to law school. I
> don't want to go to jail."
> When I look at what I spent on this -- "spent" is even the wrong word
> -- when I look at the effort I put into this, when I could have been
> building a business during the IPO gold rush, there's times I really
> wonder if I made the right decision.
> Nobody who is looking at a research project is going to say, "Well,
> gee, let me put my research into something which might get me sued,
> which might get me unending legal hassles, which might get me into
> trouble with the dean, which might get me bad press, which will
> certainly get me enmity of these powerful companies, or I could do
> something cheap and easy." What are they going to take?
> Look at what happened to Ed Felten with the threats from the Secure
> Music Digital Initiative case. People get scared.
Maybe it's time to resurrect O.W.Holmes Jrs. Clear and present danger criteria.
Clear. Present and a danger to the state. Copyright infringement is not a
danger to the state. It is a danger to one granted a benevolent monoply BY the
state but not the state itself. The states compelling interests is to promote
progress and if that interest does not coincide with the interests of the
copyright holder than the state has not reason to grant copyright...or to
finance the chilling aspects afterwards to protect it.
> Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer email@example.com http://sethf.com
> Anticensorware Investigations - http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
> Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/