[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress embarrassing memos
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress embarrassing memos
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:32:01 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcOgBh5e9JEkHY0iRsu5LNzw0BecPwCIcTgA
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress embarrassing memos
I know that snail-mail correspondance is different than
a spoken conversation, and I would imagine that an e-mail
correspondance is more comparable to a snail-mail exchange
than a conversation (now, IM on the other hand might be
I believe there are restrictions on publishing private
correspondance. There are certainly restrictions on
_recording_ private conversations without the other
person's knowledge. What exactly those restrictions
might be I will leave for the legal-ish members of
this list to fill in.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ballowe, Charles [mailto:CBallowe@usg.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 3:23 PM
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Diebold uses DMCA to suppress embarrassing
> They're using the takedown provisions, not the anti-circumvention
> 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
> utterances copyright to them? Can I repeat everything they
> say to someone
> 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
> 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 4:09 PM
> To: email@example.com
> 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent by: email@example.com
> 10/31/2003 08:51 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:12 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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:
> > 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